Have you seen interesting wildife news? June 16, 2010

Note that this replaces the 11th edition. That edition will now move slowly into the depths of the blog.

Nesting Sandhill Crane © Ken Cole

Nesting Sandhill Crane © Ken Cole

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.

432 Responses to “Have you seen interesting wildife news? June 16, 2010”

    • jon Says:

      Good, we need to bring wolves back there, but hopefully, they will move into California on their own sometime in the future.

    • Kristin, Northern CA Says:

      It is slightly awkward because they don’t have any predators.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Glad to learn the Tule elk are finally expanding in population nicely. I saw them for the first time this April on our extended trip to the desert regions of CA.

      I’m glad we made Owens Valley a place we stayed for about 5 days.

      Just like wolves, successful recovery of any animal requires that they are not all in one spot even if the population is healthy and growing.

      Does anyone have details on how many places have Tule elk populations?

    • Save bears Says:

      Ralph,

      Here is an information paper that might help…

      http://www.nps.gov/pore/planyourvisit/upload/resourcenewsletter_tuleelk.pdf

      Save Bears, thanks for the info. So the Tule Elk has been put in numerous locations, thus protecting it from a catastrophic event
      . Ralph Maughan

    • David Says:

      While it’s encouraging yo see elk numbers rising, keep in mind that the Tule Elk once numbered half-a-million. 3900 is still a tiny number and there are large areas of public land without elk herds, let alone private land. As far as I can tell, it’s the usual issues limiting range — rancher’s worrying about disease (Johne’s disease is a big one) and worries about liability if anyone is injured by a newly introduced animal. But, yes, it beats extinction and the Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain subspecies in the North of the state do look wolf-ready.

    • Save bears Says:

      David,

      If you have read any of my messages on this blog, you will know, I am not anti wolf, but I am curious, could you explain what “Wolf Ready” means?

    • Angela Says:

      I used to live in Berkeley and would often go to Point Reyes to get away from the madding crowds. Seeing the Tule Elk herd on the grassy bluffs with the bright blue ocean right behind them was/is always so beautiful.

    • Save bears Says:

      I find the Tule to be the most fascinating sub-species of elk we have, the environment they live in, is quite a bit different than the other species of elk, I have some pictures of them actually in the ocean and the calves playing in the surf..quite an interesting experience compared to the Rockies and the Roosevelt…

  1. jon Says:

    Some good news.

    New Mexico Town Passes Resolution to Ban Cruel Traps

    http://www.nocrueltrapsonpubliclands.info/home

    GF&P commissioner who faced term-limit suit resigns

    http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_6462dfe2-62d3-11df-803e-001cc4c03286.html

    • Chris Harbin Says:

      Jon,
      If you are talking about Silver City they passed a resolution supporting the ban of traps. As far as I’ve been able to gather that was as far as it went. In itself that is amazing given that Grant County is just south of the infamous Catron County

    • Maska Says:

      The demographics of Grant County are very different from those of Catron County—especially in Silver City, which is by far the largest community in the county. Silver City is home to Western NM University, has a thriving arts community, and is more dependent on mining than on agriculture.

      The town is also attempting to attract more tourism, including eco-tourism based on proximity to the Gila National Forest, including the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses. It has long been a mecca for birders.

      The largest source of income by far in Catron County, by the way, is federal transfer payments such as Social Security, government pensions, etc., not revenue from agriculture—despite frequent claims to the contrary by CC commissioners. Government, especially the federal government, is the county’s largest employer. For an interesting look at the economies of Grant and Catron Counties, along with the economies of Sierra County, NM, and Greenlee County, AZ, check out this report from Headwaters Economics:

      http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/gila/economyofgilaregion_opt.pdf

    • Chris Harbin Says:

      Maska,
      Thanks for the report, gives me an excuse to stay inside during 90-90 weather here on the Ohio Valley. I’ve been to Silver City (actually have a WNMU T-shirt) but it was a while ago. I do check out the Silver City Newspaper which seems somewhat conservative. It probably skewed my perception of the reality of the place.

  2. jon Says:

    Lion Killed for Eating Deer and Not Harming Dog… wait, what?

    http://www.chaffeecountytimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=5676

  3. jon Says:

    20 Lions is Enough to Open a Hunt in Custer State Park (SD)

    http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_fea5fd1a-5cf1-11df-82c4-001cc4c03286.html

    State officials are saying the majority of public input – from 355 comment cards – supports a trophy season on lions for recreational enjoyment. The park’s resource program manager Gary Brundige, however, says there may only be 15 to 20 mountain lions in all of Custer State Park.

    Disgusting if it happens.

  4. jon Says:

    From today

    Are wolves headed back to federal control?

    http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005131833

  5. jon Says:

    Environmentalists ask governor to spare Oregon wolves

    http://www.kval.com/outdoors/fishhunt/96516494.html

    Let’s hope the governor listens Ralph.

    • jon Says:

      A compensation program is key to gaining the broader acceptance of wolves in Oregon, yet ironically enough, the conservation community has supported such a program while the Cattlemen’s Association has blocked it.

  6. jon Says:

    As brucellosis spreads in elk, state senator see larger role for livestock department

    http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_f9a35932-57da-11df-a9f1-001cc4c002e0.html

  7. Mike Says:

    Idaho targets racoons with “kill as many as you want” policy. You can also spotlight at night. Nice.

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/15/1231959/raccoons-to-be-classified-as-predators.html

    • jon Says:

      Disgusting. I am not the biggest raccoon fan, but I would never kill one. I guess some just prefer killing rather than letting animals live.

    • Elk275 Says:

      When my parents had their farm in the Yellowstone Valley it was to shoot raccoons and skunks on sight. Those two animals are natural carriers of rabbis and the county every spring was under a rabbis quarantine. Both those animals transmit rabbis to horses and we always had twenty five plus horses. Sorry guys but raccoons and skunks not endangered and need to be shot on sight when around buildings, horses and other livestock.

    • jon Says:

      Elk, they don’t NEED to be shot. It is a choice shooting them, not a need.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Jon

      Rabbis is not something that is tolerated, period. Any animal that is infected with rabbis needs to be put down immediately.

    • jon Says:

      I agree with you it would be best to put animals down with rabies, so the animal can’t infect other animals with rabies and because living with rabies must be very painful even for animals, but not all skunks and raccoons have rabies.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Due to the high risk of rabies transmission, almost all health departments recommend destroying both skunks and raccoons when encountered close to human habitation..

      There is a very real threat based on the number of skunks and raccoons that are tested and found to be positive every year…

    • Save bears Says:

      Just to add, in many states, this is not even a wildlife issue, it is a public health issue, and no I am not be alarmist, I am being honest…

    • jon Says:

      I consider it to be both, but yeah, any animal with rabies should be put down as it is a risk to other animals and people as well plus it would be wise to end the animal’s suffering. I heard those rabie shots are painful as heck.

      Raccoons can carry rabies, and though most rabies fatalities stem from bat bites, many more people are treated for rabies from raccoon bites in the United States.

      Since the mid-1970s, a new strain of raccoon rabies has been spreading across the eastern United States, and it shows no signs of stopping — some are even calling it a “re-emerging public health threat.”

      Raccoons are everywhere and can be aggressive. One undergraduate student at the University of Rochester in New York was bitten while on a library balcony, for instance, prompting school officials to release a “wildlife alert.”

      To best keep raccoons away from your home, keep garbage containers tightly closed and try adding a splash of ammonia to it (which raccoons don’t like). Also, since raccoons prefer darkness, installing motion-activated outdoor lights could help deter them.

      I see skunks at night sometimes sb. My dog has killed 3 or 4 of them.

    • jon Says:

      sb, off topic question but has any of your dogs ever been sprayed by a skunk?

    • Linda Hunter Says:

      Down the chain we go . . kill the wolves cause they are from the government or Canada and then kill the coyotes because the wolves haven’t kept em down, then kill the raccoons because the coyote hasn’t kept em down, then kill the birds because the coons stopped keeping them down, then kill the bugs cause the birds can’t keep them down, then kill the dirt cause the microbes are killing us because the bugs aren’t keeping them down. . .

    • jon Says:

      Linda, I have no problem with killing animals that carry rabies as they pose a threat to other animals and the animals are suffering, but I do not think it is right at all to just let people have an open season and kill as many skunks as they can. Skunks are very important, but most do not see that. They only see them as rabie carrying vermin that should be killed.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      No, I have never had a dog sprayed by a skunk, I however have had the front of my car sprayed and I can tell you, it was not a pleasant experience.

    • Save bears Says:

      Back when I lived in WA in the 90’s the neighbor on the adjoining farm had the animal control officers come out and trap the raccoons she had on her property, out of the 10 captured 4 tested positive for rabies, now folks, that is a 40% infection rate, which I am sure varies, but it is high enough that we should have a major concern….

    • cc Says:

      Elk275,
      Raccoons and skunks “are natural carriers of rabbis”? Do badgers carry priests?

    • Elk275 Says:

      ++but I do not think it is right at all to just let people have an open season and kill as many skunks as they can.++

      That is your opinion, but there is no way that any western state is going to give skunks or raccoons any protection. They will be shot on sight and I will shot them on sight if need be.

    • jon Says:

      Take a look at this funny picture sb.

      How can we reasonably stop the spread of raccoon rabies? Both the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the respective state departments of health have participated in programs to eliminate raccoon rabies through an Oral Rabies Vaccine — usually in a rural setting. Vaccinating wild raccoons, instead of killing them is the most effective way to stop raccoon rabies. An Oral Rabies Vaccine bait (dyed pink) is inserted within a compressed block of fishmeal and fish oil, which is very attractive to raccoons. Dropped from planes and distributed by land vehicles, the bait is quickly consumed within 5 days. Once consumed by the raccoon, antibodies will develop within 2-3 weeks to protect the newly vaccinated raccoon against exposure from rabid raccoons. The spread of rabies is greatly reduced by ever greater numbers of raccoons that have been successfully vaccinated.

    • Elk275 Says:

      That is what a spell checker will do when one does not pay attention. Writing on this forum has reveal several learning disabilities: I can not spell and I can twist words around. Dyslexia is starting to return.

    • jon Says:

      Maybe you should rethink that kind of attitude elk. Skunks are beneficial to farmers because they feed on large numbers of agricultural and garden pests.

    • JB Says:

      Per usual, there is a gray area here between ‘kill em all’ and ‘protect em all’ that is not being discussed. You might want to take a close look at this map on the CDCs website: http://tiny.cc/pzqpc

      On the other hand, raccoons carry raccoon round worm, which is equally scary disease: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/baylisascaris/2004_PDF_Baylisascaris.pdf

    • Angela Says:

      well, we here in Olympia have Psycho Killer RaccoonsTM (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-08-22-psycho-raccoons_x.htm) and I still enjoy their occasional visits to my yard. Nobody has died of rabies yet and I make sure not to eat their poop. Opossum, cottontails, and Columbia Black-tailed Deer too. I am such a horribly stupid person that I even feed one of the Douglas squirrels hazelnuts by hand. I even occasionally have Deer Mice come in the house!! Horrors! Goodbye cruel world!

      Linda, you have it exactly right.

    • jon Says:

      I swear, people blow this rabies thing out of proportion. Let’s look at the facts shall we?

      How common is rabies in the United States?
      Rabies has been reported in every state except Hawaii. In 2006, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported 6,940 cases of rabies in animals and 3 human cases to CDC. The total number of reported cases increased by 8.2% from those reported in 2005 (6,418 cases).

      In the last 100 years, the number of human deaths from rabies in the United States has fallen from 100 or more per year to an average of 1-2 per year. This decline is due to both the improved control and vaccination of domestic animals and to the development of effective postexposure treatment and vaccines. Although human deaths from rabies are now rare in the United States, every year approximately 40,000 persons receive postexposure treatment for rabies exposure.

    • Elk275 Says:

      I swear Jon you could not set a mouse trap in your own house.

    • jon Says:

      Who needs traps when you already have poison elk?🙂

    • Elk275 Says:

      Jon

      In jest – Please

      ++Some sick worthless scumbag puts strychnine laced cheese out and Micky Mouse dies because of it along with Mini Mouse

      Mr and Mrs Mouse aren’t even safe in their own mouse holes.

    • jon Says:

      Elk, you cannot compare dogs being poisoned to mouses being poisoned. Would you want mouses running around in your home? Intentionally poisoning a dog is a crime. I can’t say the same for mouses. I actually did not want the mouse to be poisoned, but others in my family did. You know how people are when they see a mouse, they freak up.

    • jon Says:

      They freak out is what I meant to say.

    • Angela Says:

      I sort of enjoy seeing a deer mouse run across the counter and disappear down the back burner of the stove. In fact, I just saw that a half hour ago. Snap traps are the more humane method for killing small mammals. There are new ones out that are more effective. Poisoned mice tend to die inside your walls.

  8. jon Says:

    Some sick worthless scumbag puts strychnine laced meatballs out and pitbull puppy dies because of it along with another dog

    Dogs aren’t even safe in their own backyards

    http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Poisoned-Meatball-Mystery-Deepens–96563499.html

  9. pointswest Says:

    Water Supply Study Launched (Rexburg Standard Journal)

    http://www.rexburgstandardjournal.com/news/article_1203275c-79b2-11df-84d1-001cc4c03286.html

    This study was the controversial Teton Dam study that drew sensational headlines several months ago. They have broadened the scope of the study to include the entire Henry’s Fork drainage. I have been involved with this for several years. Few believed the Teton Dam would or could be rebuilt. The study always was about some much better opportunities for water storage at offstream sites. I know because they were my ideas and I started pushing for a study over six years ago.

    The many comments in this article are upbeat and positive. I think we will see something built in a few years.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      I certainly hope this doesn’t happen.

      The Teton Dam was a waste of money even assuming it did not collapse. The last thing these rivers that flow out of the Yellowstone country needs are dams.

      This time Uncle Sucker isn’t going to pay for the dam or dams.

    • pointswest Says:

      What I am proposing and what is being studied are off-stream reservoirs. The rivers themselves are not dammed.

      In the case of Island Park, the proposed system would act like a silt trap preventing the Henry’s Fork being silted again like it was in 1977.

      In the case of a proposed Teton Lake, it would prevent farmers from completely drying up Fall River and might improve the fisheries on the lower Teton, lower Fall River, and the lower Henry’s Fork. The upper and middle Teton River would be uneffected except some the spring runnoff would be diverted.

      I agree the Teton Dam was a bad idea and I too am against it or any other dam that would backup a flowing river.

  10. jon Says:

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/the_fate_of_northern_rockies_w.html

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/the_fate_of_northern_rockies_w.html

    Many of the judge’s questions probed a key issue in the case: was it legal for the government to remove Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not Wyoming?

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      What a good article! And yet there are plenty of people who want to save every stray cat and even increase the size of whitetailed deer herds.

    • Carl Says:

      Great article but they didn’t address the fact that alot of these species have increased because we like to feed them. The feeding of wildlife can have a big negative effect on ecosytems by changing the population dynamics of a few species.

    • Linda Hunter Says:

      People who think raccoons are cute and feed them cat food cause the population to boom as, just like bears, raccoons have more babies if the environment can support them. Articles like this don’t mention that the big problem with the suburban environment is lack of predators and animal lovers whose sentiments are misplaced at best.

    • Angela Says:

      We lack top carnivores in populated areas. I wish they could keep the people thinned out as well, because the biggest problem is too many humans and not enough space for large carnivores. The same argument against feeding wildlife has occasionally been made against feeding birds, but you won’t be stopping that anytime soon either! I can feed my Tamiasciurus with a clean conscience because they are territorial mammals and they chase the eastern gray squirrels out of my yard. I feed the deer by letting my quarter-acre front yard grow into a jungle each summer instead of having a lawn and having a gigantic old apple tree and planting things they like to eat. Other wildlife are attracted by both the apples as well as the numerous voles that live in the pasture and yard. Pileated woodpeckers love apples after the first freeze. Not all wildlife “feeding” is intentional, in other words. But in the five years I have lived here, I haven’t seen the raccoon population grow. I see only one pair and their two offspring; their numbers seem primarily controlled by road kills. I would think that habitat fragmentation has a lot bigger influence on populations of mesocarnivores and omnivores than people feeding them, but I’d love to see some research if there is any. Most of these are edge species. To support larger carnivores (and many bird species) you need more open space. But then communities have little tolerance for wolves and mountain lions in their neighborhoods.

      What if we could genetically engineer wolves to eat only wild prey and not livestock and people’s shitzus? Someday maybe.

  11. SEAK Mossback Says:

    Here’s an article that touches on wolf families in relatively unexploited populations compared with exploited populations where there is a lot more turmoil and turnover. It seems like there are practical implications for management of wolves around livestock conflicts and popular prey populations, although they may not be consistent from case to case. It seems like if established wolves in an area are effectively using a healthy natural prey population, the best course may be to leave them alone. I believe the same was found for coyotes years ago, although common wisdom still seems to be that dead coyotes = benefit to agriculture. I know some people who hunt and trap coyotes understand that but they don’t try to educate farmers because they really like always being welcome – and it often carries over to a welcome during deer season. However, canid species seem adaptable enough to thrive in either situation.
    http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers/wolfnews.htm

    • Angela Says:

      That’s exactly why wolves should not be managed like ungulates. The least state agencies could do would be to try different management strategies in different areas of the state to compare the results.

  12. JEFF E Says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008020-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
    a Texas republican, go figure.
    who has since retracted. what a babbling moron

    • JEFF E Says:

      just an observation, has any one noticed that we have not heard a peep out of dumb ass Cheney since this whole fiasco started. I mean before there was hardly a day he was not saying something stupid…now he disappeared off the face of the earth.
      (I find that …….courious.)

    • WM Says:

      Looks like yet another village in Texas is missing an idiot.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Jeff E,

      Yes, I have really noticed how Dick Cheney seems to have been struck silent.

    • JB Says:

      “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.”

      — I do not want to live in a country where big corporations have so much power that the President of the United States has to go begging for money to fix the problems that corporation caused. This oil spill is yet another demonstration that less regulation is not necessarily a good thing.

      – – – –

      By the way, not sure if anyone caught Obama’s speech last night, but I noted that he pegged the tragedy and BP and the MMS, while holding up Ken Salazar as a model citizen.

    • Angela Says:

      We may have less of Dick, but we still have his dumb ass daughter Liz and her absolutely bizarre ideas.

  13. jon Says:

    VERY GOOD article

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627641.000-family-values-why-wolves-belong-together.html?full=true

    Family values: Why wolves belong together

    In Alaska, up to 50 per cent of wolves are shot or trapped every year, with little effect on their numbers. But Haber argued that by focusing on population size, the establishment has ignored the fact that the hunting of wolves warps their social structure, ripping apart the family ties and traditions that define wolf society.

  14. Save bears Says:

    This makes the gulf look like a weekend holiday!

    Geeze:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37746494/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

    • Chris Harbin Says:

      Sb thanks for the article. I saw a portion on MSNBC last night. Unfortunately, it’s a problem that Nigeria won’t be able to fix – at least for a long while.

  15. Si'vet Says:

    Moose, nice enclosed ranchette area,how many donkeys to cover tens of thousands of acre’s. The cost to winter them?

    • Moose Says:

      Si’vet,
      May not be praticable for all…but for smaller Midwestern farms/ranches it may be a cheap alternative.

  16. Si'vet Says:

    A survey I would find very interesting> how many folks would be pro wolf if; as the wolf population grew there personal income shrunk. hmm

    • Moose Says:

      Probably as many as the number of hunters who would agree to allowing the general populace to determine all hunting regulations.

  17. Cody Coyote Says:

    Friday June 18: I got a call late last night that the Wyo G&F and Park County Sheriff’s office were called up the North Fork of the Shoshone. A Grizzly apparently killed a hiker about 2 miles up Kitty Creek, which is about 9 miles east of Yellowstone and very near the Buffalo Bill Boy Scout cabin and lodge complex. Information is very sketchy. It was first reported as a mauling, then a fatality.

    Being a Friday , I’m not sure any more information will be forthcoming till Monday.

  18. Cody Coyote Says:

    Oh…now I see Ralph’s and Elk275’s post above on the same Grizzly bear incident above.

    Yes, Kitty Creek is a fine backcountry area, even with all the summer homes at the base of it and the aforementioned Scout Camp just around the corner. It is very prime Grizzly habitat, too. The whole of the upper North Fork is an excellent place to see Grizz…perhaps the densest population of them anywhere , even Yellowstone. Kitty Creek due to its heavy recreational use by cabin loungers, fishermen, hikers, backpackers, and horsemen is a very likely place for human-bear encounters to occur. I’ve never felt uncomfortable there. Au contraire.

    Ralph— The long meadows at the head of Kitty Creek under Howell Mountain are called Paradise Valley, and not for no reason. I even used to snowshoe up to Flora Lake in November, and the alpine XC skiing and telemarking is heavenly once you get up the steep 2 miles of switchbacks at the bottom and break into the meadows. Billy Howell’s ashes were scattered on top of Howell Mtn that bears his name, and a nice stone cairn with a marker stone can be found on the summit overlooking Eagle Creek Meadows and the magnificent glaciers of Fishhawk Basin. The Thorofare is just up over the southeast skyline, and Mountain Creek which leads down to Bridger Lake is over the southwest rim . Looking northwest, you can see all the way over to the Lamar in Yellowstone from up there and the high granite Beartooths far off to the north It’s a magical place. Billy Howell was quite a character in his day …he started the first real dude ranch in the Cody area , now known as Crossed Sabers formerly Holm Lodge. across the highway from the mouth of Kitty Creek. Howell had the privilege of naming a lot of the nearby Absaroka geologic features after his ladyfriends…Kitty, Flora Libby , Ruth , Neva, and those are just the ones off the top of my head

    I’ve only ever seen two Wolverines in the Absarokas, and one of them was on a backpacking trip up Kitty Creek in 1974, actually over in Cloudburst Creek as we were bushwhacking down to Eagle Meadows.

    This bear mauling story will get hammered in the press, I’m sure. But given its wild nature and excellent habitat, all jammed up against human facilities and access, Kitty Creek is precisely where you would expect a bear-human conflict to occur, regrettably. It’s the classic example of humans encroaching on native Grizzly habitat , not the other way around. We’ll see if the media and pundits can keep their perspective on that .

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Cody Coyote,

      Thanks for the information on Billy Howell. I have spent some time in a lot of that country, but knew (and still know nothing) about its history.

      The abrupt transition from meadow to incredibly rugged at Flora Lake is really something.

      Eagle Creek Meadows is one the the prettiest places I have been although I got treed by moose there. It took me a long time of overcome my fear to hiking/backpacking in grizzly country. Spending time here and also just my wife was one way I did it.

      Maybe its just me but I was afraid of big bears and I shake my head at people who feel physically unsafe about the wolves that have returned.

      I have put some photos (scans) of the area up on Google Earth.

      Beneath Howell Monuntain. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/30978897

      Meadows in Kitty Creek. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/30977668

      Overlook of Eagle Creek and Cabin Creek. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2126687

      Near Flora Lake. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5798792

      Eagle Creek Meadows. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2027360

      Wet morning in Eagle Creek. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6651434

      Eagle Creek Meadows (I got treed by two moose shortly after this photo was taken) http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5797918

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      Very nice photos, Ralph. Thanks. My wife is talking about a backcountry hike in or around Yellowstone this September and we’ll keep this place in mind. However, I’ve always liked the upper Lamar. Also the upper Gardner-Fawn Creek. And of course the thoroughfare. All of those are of course prime grizzly areas. I know the feeling you describe – I first started hiking and camping without an adult in those places at age 12 with a kid who was 14. Grizzlies were much rarer then which actually made them seem much more dangerous – it almost seemed like encountering grizzly = death. Without bear spray our only plan was to get up a tree or play dead.

  19. Nancy Says:

    Si’vet,
    Since most (if not all) of the depredations that occur around here during the winter months when young cattle are confined or cows are calving, I can see how a handful of donkeys thrown into the mix might just be benefical or as I said before, mules. They also dispise canines.

    • WM Says:

      Nancy,

      From the article:

      ++Since donkeys will not tolerate any canine, farm dogs learn quickly to not go near them, and learn to stay out of their pastures.++

      My family had two donkeys, that grazed with about fifteen head of cattle. We had two, and sometimes even three dogs, with neighbors that also had dogs occasionally visiting the pasture. No deterrent whatsoever in our instance. Donkeys are, however, smart, very curious, and even mischievous – ours used to pick up and drag off hammers and shovels left temporarily unattended while we were working fence. Also had one bite down on my index finger, just hard enough to keep me from extracting it and kept me that way for over a minute, and it could easily have bitten it off, like a carrot. He just wanted attention. Same one hated water, and would go great distances to avoid getting his feet wet. And noses, softer and fuzzier than any horse. I like them, and hope others do.

      I gather this works in Great Lakes area (article appears to be MN) area where the wolves are smaller and the packs are only 4-5 animals, as opposed to larger NRM wolves with packs up to 10. Maybe Defenders, (or the asses at the MT Livestock Board) should buy some donkeys and do some experiments.

  20. Si'vet Says:

    Nancy, the ranchers I know and ones I’ve spoke with, refer to unaccounted for calves at fall gather.

    • jon Says:

      wolves were responsible for around 94 cattle losses in Montana in 2009 out of millions of cattle. Wolf depredation is a red herring. Coyotes are the main predator of calves and even they kill so few. It’s weather, disease, theft and reproductive issues that cause thousand upon thousand of losses. The wolf issue is blown out of proportion to get wolves killed, pure and simple. 10,500 calves were lost to weather in Montana (NASS 05).

      A large portion of their income is lost because of the above reasons, not wolves.

    • mikarooni Says:

      Yes, jon, but Ralph has already explained what’s behind this disconnect. Essentially, weather and disease provide ranchers neither an opportunity to go to town and act out at a hearing noe an excuse to run the hills on their ATVs on the wolf equivalent of snipe hunts.

  21. Si'vet Says:

    Nancy, read SB’s link on ranching/wolves/Oregon rancher, it is a perfect example of what I see and here from ranchers, in Idaho.

  22. Si'vet Says:

    And the wolf losses are in addititon to all the other losses. Last I checked it was pretty hard to control the weather…

    • JB Says:

      Si’vet:

      Frankly, that is an oversimplification. Wolves disproportionately kill vulnerable prey (i.e. sick, weak, very young, very old). There is no question that some of these animals (whether wild or domestic) would have died –if not by wolves–then by other natural causes. Moreover, wolves kill coyotes and feral dogs, both of which prey on wild and domestic ungulates. To assert that all wolf mortality is additive is a blatant and irresponsible misrepresentation.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      On our trip to the Mojave Desert, I was amazed and pleased to see that many miles of desert turtle fence had been put up along many highways.

      The fences are about 1 1/2 feet high.

    • mikarooni Says:

      Isn’t AZ afraid that illegal immigrants might start using those rope bridges?

  23. jon Says:

    Is anyone familiar with kangal dogs? They would be very good dogs to have to protect livestock. They are very big dogs.

  24. Chris Harbin Says:

    Here is Idiot Barton’s website from which you can contact him and thank him for apologizing for you.

    http://joebarton.house.gov/default.aspx

  25. Si'vet Says:

    Jon surely you’ve heard of the term: follow like a herd of sheep. There in lies one big difference, when out on summer graze, sheep usually stay banded together, and a herder with a hores and a couple of dogs, can keep pretty close tabs on them. And I’ve seen them with several of the guard dogs ( not visitor friendly) in many cases. Cattle on the other hand will spread out over the entire range quickly. So your talking apples and oranges. And as for your loss numbers, they are based on confirmed kills not on calves unaccounted for, there just gone, and $$$ lost.

    • mikarooni Says:

      I can sure understand herders needing “hores” given their lonely occupations.

  26. jon Says:

    Some welcome Oregon wolf return, others concerned

    http://www.mycentraloregon.com/news/state/ap/1232926/Some-welcome-Oregon-wolf-return-others-concerned.html

    “You’ve got essentially a social experiment here,” said Wallowa County Sheriff Fred Steen.”Wolves are a very efficient, four-legged piranha.”

    • mikarooni Says:

      Have any of you people been to Wallowa County and met Fred Steen? I’m shocked he knows what a piranha is. I’m positive that, if his words hadn’t been transcribed by a reporter of some sort, the word piranha would have ben misspelled.

  27. Elk275 Says:

    I grew up in Billings so I check the Gazette several times a day for various items and I just came across this.

    It is about the grizzly killing near Cody

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_f40ecce6-7b15-11df-aed5-001cc4c03286.html

  28. Nancy Says:

    Yep I read the article Si’vet, this comment kind of jumped out at me though:
    “I never found a single carcass. I never found anything,” said Nash, operator of the 550-cow Marr Flat Cattle Co. near Joseph. “This is like the ‘Twilight Zone”‘

    That sounds more like cattle rustling to me. Seems I read something not long ago about ranchers having a problem with that in places along the nothern part of west coast.

    WM, I know a couple that manage a ranch who have a small donkey and he runs rough shod over their bulls. When he decides to move to another location to graze, he just rounds all the big guys up and moves them like a cow dog. Its pretty cute to watch. But I still think mules would be a better deterent. They are much bigger and meaner when it comes to canines.
    A friend had a cow dog that liked to jump out at her horses when they got to close to the fence or hung their heads over to graze. One of their mules happened to be hanging out by the fence when the dog got in its face. The mule grabbed the dog by the scruff of its neck, shook it a few times and then dropped it. It was the last time the dog made a game out of stalking the fencelines.

    Don’t know about anyone else, but it was warm and sunny here today, a nice break from the rains, cold temps (and yes, snow yesterday) Took advantage and got some yardwork done!

  29. Elk275 Says:

    Nancy

    Just because one is a so called “cowboy” and considers himself a horseman does not mean that they can handle mules. It takes a mule man to handle mules.

    I really want to buy myself a good mule, but? I do not know if I could handle them by myself. There are many ranchers and cattlemen who have never touched a mule. A mule is a mule.

  30. Si'vet Says:

    Nancy, sounds like twilight zone to you. Sounds like predation to me. Calf killed and consumed by large carnivore, remains scavaged, and carried off by birds and other smaller predators. Remember we are talking square miles. As I posted before, I witnessed what was left of a full grown bull elk from 10 am one day till 1pm the next. I could have put the remains in a duffel bag, except for the rack.

  31. jon Says:

    Guard donkeys help ranchers protect herds

    http://www.solacefarm.com/protection.htm

    • mikarooni Says:

      Yeah, I can see how ranchers might go for the donkey thing; they have a lot in common.

  32. Nancy Says:

    “Sounds like predation to me. Calf killed and consumed by large carnivore, remains scavaged, and carried off by birds and other smaller predators. Remember we are talking square miles. As I posted before, I witnessed what was left of a full grown bull elk from 10 am one day till 1pm the next. I could have put the remains in a duffel bag, except for the rack”

    So Si’vet, some solutions or attempts at solutions seem like a good idea to me if one wants to run a cattle business (or any other livestock) over thousands of square miles (alot of it on public lands) and not have to worry about those animals being a banquet or picnic basket for wildlife (as in predators and their numerous followers) that need to be there ( studies are leaning in that direction in recent years) for the health of ecosystems left in this country that are still not tainted by the human desire to “develop”

    Humans have had the option available for years when it comes to different sources of meat (protein) Its either on the shelf at the local food outlet or as in the case of many on this site, within miles, depending on where you live and your needs or how much you are willing to spend for that “ah ha” moment (sport hunting)

    On the other hand, predators have to work very hard for that same source of protein, day in and day out and if its handed to them on a platter of excuses, so be it!

  33. pointswest Says:

    Here is what I am proposing for the Henry’s Fork Study.

    Teton Lake…

    This image show how Teton Lake compares to the original Teton Dam before it collapsed…

    This is a propsal to create off-stream storage on the West End of Island Park Reservoir…

    These two reservoirs would improve the fisheries and would only add wildlife habitat.

    • pointswest Says:

      Whoops…wrong link…
      This is a propsal to create off-stream storage on the West End of Island Park Reservoir…

    • mikarooni Says:

      I don’t know; this sure sounds like famous last words all over again. Didn’t this turn out to be a BP-quality design the last time it was tried?

    • pointswest Says:

      What last time? These are dams, tunnels, and open channels and we have built thousands of them over the past few thousand years. It is not like drilling for oil in mile deep water.

      Do nothing and Fall River will continue to be dewatered, the lower Teton will continue to be dewatered, and the Henry’s Fork will be silted again as it was in 1977.

  34. Mike Says:

    Grizzly bear kills man near Yellowstone right after being tranqued:

    http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12674596

    Wow. I am so sick and tired of hearing of these tranq stories. This needs to end, and end NOW. LEave the animals alone.

    • mikarooni Says:

      Yep, I guess a tranqued and manhandled grizz could wake up in a pretty irritable mood. …and this comes right on the heels of the biostitutes in Glacier who couldn’t even tranq mountain goats without killing them and then there is the macho B fiasco and I also remember when the bear biostitute was slipping his female coworker doses of ketamine and filing his playtime with her. Who’s training these people?

    • jon Says:

      I agree, the animals should be left alone. The bear most likely killed this man because the bear saw the man as a threat for whatever reason and watch now, they will find the bear and kill it because afterall, bears are supposed to be scared of humans so the experts tell you. Bears defend themselves against humans and they pay with their lives. What a lovely world we live in. This bear will probably receive a death sentence for killing someone that was most likely threatening the bear or that is how the bear probably felt.

  35. Patrick Says:

    Interesting story from Minnesota about grazing mammoth donkeys in with cattle to protect them from wolves.

    See: http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers/wolfnews.htm

  36. SEAK Mossback Says:

    This is really something to watch out for if anybody is handling bears in an area where you are hiking. A similar incident happened on NE Chichagof Island where a couple of guys accompanied by a National Geographic photographer collared a bear and then they all passed back near the general area a few hours later. The bear ran one of them down and clamped onto his leg (he was able to get some protection for the rest of himself behind an alder trunk) while the others scurried off – one of them finally ventured back and shot it. The odds of that attack having occurred if the bear had not been darted and handled aren’t zero, but pretty close to it. They seem to come out in a pretty foul mood and are apparently aware of what’s happening while they are immobilized, just can’t move.

  37. Si'vet Says:

    JB, you are so right, coyotes dragging down 250 lb calves, and the range is covered in feral dogs,( I’ve seen 2 scrawny starving feral dogs in 40+ years) mirepresentation, I believe Jon called it “Red Herring” give me a break.
    I’m sorry Nancy, weren’t we talking about wolves. Or was I right all along, wolves are just smoke and mirrors used to cover up the real agenda, doing away with ranching and hunting. Thanks Nancy you have exposed the truth..

    • Elk275 Says:

      Si’vet

      You are so right. One thing that I have found on this forum is that there are some who have no regards for private property rights. A large private ranch should be part of the public domain. Cattle are foreign and need to be removed from the landscape and the cattleman’s and hunter’s days are numbered.

      I have encounter people who have worked on environmental issues for the last decade who have the same feeling when I mention this forum. Ralph has done a excellent job of letting everyone express their opinion; I will defend anyones right to their opinion.

  38. Si'vet Says:

    JB forgot the one upper reply about Idaho.
    From my house in Idaho
    1. Sturgeon, trout, small mouth, perch- 25 min.
    2. Turkey, deer, (mule/whitetail) elk, moose, mtn lion. 20 min.
    3. Walleye, chukar, quail – 40 min.
    4. Pheasant, coyotes- 100 yds from back deck
    5. Bear, mountain goat, – 1hr. 40 min.
    6. Bighorn sheep — 1hr, 50 min.
    7. World class waterfowl hunting— 5 min.
    As far as wildlife parks, I consider them a zoo, only park I care to visit is one that has 3 bases and a home plate. Got one up?

  39. Si'vet Says:

    Yesterday, I posed the question, with regards to how pro would would prowolf people be if their income was reduced with the increase of wolf population. Not any takers.
    So here’s another thought. A simple experiment, I wish it could be preformed with the existing lower 48 state wolf vs the introduced wolf, but I’m pretty sure any wolves that were domincile in the lower 48 are now scat. Again I’m not a genetist, but if a Canadian wolf is a the same as the wolves that were here previous, in essence a wolf is a wolf. Then a
    shiras moose is the same as a Canadian moose, just lives a little farther North. So the experiment, take one 6 year old typical shiras BULL moose, and one 6 year old Canadian BULL moose and put them in a large high fence enclosure, for a couple of months. Then we bring a cow moose in estrus, Who’s genes will be passed on to the next generation? Shiras, or Canadian? Is there a biologists or whom ever that would be willing to bet on the Shiras moose, not likely, but wait, if a wolf is a wolf, isn’t a moose a moose, or does enviroment and evolution and survival of the fittest come in to play.

    • jon Says:

      Si’vet, ranchers/farmers know there is a risk that is involved in what they do and they knowingly take that risk knowing that they will lose animals to predators. That is THEIR CHOICE to do that kind of work. Instead of crying wolf and trying to seek compensation, try using pro active measures of keeping predators out instead of calling in ws to kill wild predators for what they normally do. Farmers/ranchers lose many more animals to weather and disease and other things and all you ever hear them complaining about is the few animals they lose to wolves. Farming/ranching was their choice to do and they should accept the risks involved.

    • JB Says:

      Si’vet:

      You had no takers because it is a ridiculous question. Let me turn it around to illustrate: How many pro-elk people would be pro-elk if their income was reduced with the increase in elk population? See what I mean?

      A better question would be: how many people’s incomes ARE being significantly reduced by wolves? Well, likely some outfitters and livestock producers that live within the wolf’s range. You might make the argument that decreased hunting-related tourism is affecting some local businesses as well, though recall that Duffield et al. found that wolves brought $35.5 million to the local economies around the GYE. So my answer to this question would be, not very many people; certainly, they represent a tiny fraction of the overall population, even within the few states that have wolves.

      The moose question is equally absurd. The shiras moose is the smallest recognized subspecies of moose (A. a. shirasi), which differs from the the western moose (A. a. andersoni), so your analogy fails. More importantly, there is enough variation between individuals that the idea that the Western moose would always beat out the shiras also fails.

      Both of the hypothetical questions you have posed seem designed more to promote an anti-wolf agenda and provoke argument then to have any type of legitimate discussion about the facts.

    • Ryan Says:

      JB,

      I read the study, interestin fact was that there were more visitors prior to wolves than since wolves were reintroduced. Way more if the Per Capita standard is used.

    • howlcolorado Says:

      Perhaps Ralph should add forums to this site so that we don’t get random threads like this on a post that is supposed to be about wildlife news.

  40. Si'vet Says:

    JB, somewhere in the mix I replied to your misrepresentation comment. JB really?? You know better…

    • JB Says:

      JB really??

      Yes, really. Asserting that all wolf mortality is additive is a blatant misrepresentation of fact, Si’vet.

    • jon Says:

      I would not be surprised if some wolf hater sss the wolf. Hopefully, it will turn out that the wolf is ok. I would love to see hundreds of wolves in Oregon in the future.

    • Ryan Says:

      Jon,

      There isn’t room in oregon for hundred and hundred of wolves, the Prey base isn’t large enough.

  41. jon Says:

    Fish & Game is self-funded, but director sees need for a conservation license

    http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/fish-game-is-self-funded-but-director-sees-need-for-a-conservation-license/

    Sheep and Wolf Protectors Standing By as Grazing Season Begins

    http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2010/06/16/commodities/livestock/lvstk15.txt

  42. jon Says:

    Site that sells wolf hybrid puppies.

    http://www.pets4you.com/wolf.html

  43. Mike Says:

    It looks like the wife of the man killed by a WY grizz was part of the research team:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/18/wyoming.man.grizzly.death/index.html?hpt=T2

    There’s too many cooks in the woods, folks. Time to leave the animals alone. Between the hunters, biologists and photographers there’s a hihdeous never-ending onslaught of humans upon wildlife. If this bear is tracked and killed I will be incredibly pissed off.

    • jon Says:

      Mike, I expect the bear to be killed. Afterall, we can’t have man killing bears roaming around and living even if they have a right to defend themselves against humans that invade their home or present a threat to them in the bear’s eyes.

    • Mike Says:

      How can they kill a bear for attacking a human when they were the ones resposnbile for the attack?

    • jon Says:

      I know Mike, but that is the way things are. I don’t like them anymore than you do. It’s funny because we humans are allowed to kill bears and mt lions (most of the time we kill them for sport), but they aren’t allowed to “hunt” us. Normally when they attack, they attack either to eat us or because they see us as threat (more times a threat than seeing us as food, can’t say that for Timmy Tredwell) and these are perfectly normal reactions on their part, but yet, they die for it. We come in, destroy their habitat and kill them for sport and when they attack us, they are killed. Such a sad world we live in.

    • Mike Says:

      Much more is coming out on this story. Apparently the deceased hiker knew of the bear trapping signs and knew the risks:

      http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_f40ecce6-7b15-11df-aed5-001cc4c03286.html

      A longtime friend and professional colleague said Evert was aware that researchers had been trying for several days to trap a bear in the area, and that friends and family members were unsure why he had hiked into the capture site despite knowing the risks.

      “None of us understand it and apparently never will,” said retired ecologist Chuck Neal, author of “Grizzlies in the Mist.”

      The couple owned a second home along Kitty Creek but were not full time residents apparently, only living there during the summers. They were originally from Illinois.

      I’m wondering if the hiker had photo equipment. Seems that knowing where a groggy bear was might get one some nice photos.

    • jon Says:

      Most of these people do know the risks, but they still ignore them for whatever reason. People who bike and attacked by mt. lions know the risk and they still take them. People who swim in the ocean know there aregreat whites and they still swim. People who swim in the water in Australia know very well crocodiles inhabit them and they still swim. Some people just don’t have common sense Mike and they ignore the risks thinking nothing will ever ever happen to them, but reality has taught us different. Just like the teacher killed by wolves in Alaska. She knew the risks and look what happened to her. Not having common sense will get you killed.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Mike

      ++If this bear is tracked and killed I will be incredibly pissed off.++

      Mike who really cares if you are pissed off or not.

  44. Si'vet Says:

    JB, ridiculus to you since you don’t share in the loss. To families been directly affected it’s not ridiculus. You proved my point. As for the GYE example again point proven, long way from a place like Troy Mt. those few folks feel like they matter.
    Moose experiment, yup, there is a difference, that’s the point. And there is no boundry’s to seperate the 2.
    A rancher who at fall gather ave. 4 calves short, every yr. for 50 yrs. Now that ave. number is 12, in my world that’s additional or addititve.
    Jon, ranchers have always figured in the risk’s, most they have no control over. This new risk has been forced on them, and and I haven’t seen one practical preventitive solution presented yet, other than just quit, fold up, sell out. great solution.

    • JB Says:

      (1) What point? That people who perceive themselves to be negatively impacted by a species tend to view that species negatively? I would’ve thought that was obvious.

      (2) There are very few boundaries separating a sorts of species, sub-species, or populations that occur on this continent; that does not mean that they are the same, nor does it mean they are different. Taxonomists consider differences in morphology, physiology and behavior when determining whether two populations constitute different subspecies. The analogy you made compares two subspecies recognized for differences in size; moreover, the comparison (who wins the “heart” of the girl) is not even relevant to the context of wolves in the NRs.

      (3) What rancher? You’re pulling numbers out of a hat to make an example which is an oversimplification. Some losses to wolves will be additive and some will be compensatory.

    • jon Says:

      I called it sb! Now we have to wait for the explanation as to why the bear killed the man in the first place.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      I really could care less if you called it…this is not a good situation all around, perhaps it will change the protocols that the teams use, of course they are not going to stop collaring and studying the bears, they are required to do these actions because of the Endangered Species Act..

      People have to realize, once an animal is on the list, law requires them to study and such because the goal is to get them recovered and off the list, so these types of actions are going to continue to go on, hopefully this is a very isolated situation and future protocol assessments will prevent it from happening again.

    • jon Says:

      sb, are these experts going to tell us why the bear killed the man in the first place? Isn’t there some protocol determining whether or not to kill a bear if it kills a human? What if the bear saw the guy as a threat for whatever reason? Why should the bear be killed for defending itself? Oh, that’s right, all bears are supposed to run away when they see a human. Are bears not allowed to defend themselves if they feel they are threatened? Anytime a bear feels threatened and attacks someone, it is usually a death sentence for the bear. I am waiting for these experts to release a statement as to why the bear killed the man in the first place. Situations like these, it is usually caused by human error and sadly, the bear has to lose its life over it.

    • Layton Says:

      So Jon,

      I guess that I am to assume – from your recent comments – that, if a predator of some type – wolf, bear, mtn. lion, etc., is either currently IN an area or MOVES into an area that all bets are off?? I mean to say that the area now belongs to the predator/endangered critter and it’s “people beware”??

      Helluva deal!!

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      I made it into a post. This whole thing has suffered from conflicting information and very little of it official.

  45. jon Says:

    Another bear attack, this time in Alaska. This bear will most likely receive a death sentence as well.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/alaska.bear.attacks/?iref=obinsite

  46. jon Says:

    sb, will the Alaskan female bear that attacked the person in Alaska receive a death sentence as well even though the bear was clearly protecting her cub?

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      I really have no desire to debate this issue with you, the only thing I will say, is bears are not always destroyed because they attack a human, in fact less and less bears are being destroyed because of it, the evaluate every situation differently now a days, remember the bear that attacked and mauled Jim Cole a couple of years ago in Yellowstone was not destroyed because she was protecting her cub…

    • Save bears Says:

      I will say, based on the small amount of information in the CNN article, that bear will not be destroyed.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Jon

      Yes that bear will be destroyed. The attach occurred on the Anchorage bicycle trails in the City of Anchorage and there is no place for grizzlies/brown bears in a community of 300,000. There are thousands of grizzlies in Alaska.

      The most dangerous things on the Anchorage bicycle trails are not bears. It is the two legged animal. Last time I was in Anchorage during the summer months there were rapes and muggings on the trail network. Eventually, the police department use a young attractive female officer with a discretely hidden gun riding her bike down the trails with several others police officers approximately 300 hundred yards behind. Unfortunately, those attackers were not destroyed

    • jon Says:

      sb thinks that bear will not be destroyed. We will see what happens in the upcoming days.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      It was simply an observation on my part based on what has been reported, who the hell cares what I think, I have never been to Alaska and dealt with bear issues up there..

  47. Chris Harbin Says:

    I don’t remember a section of the ESA thats says bears, or any other animal, has to be radio-collared.

    • Save bears Says:

      And Chris, you won’t

      But you will see protocols that require continuous monitoring of the animals to ensure that they are in fact recovering, collaring large mammals is currently one of the most efficient and effective ways to follow the mandates of the ESA.

    • Chris Harbin Says:

      sb, I’m aware of how animals are monitored and studied. I was not being very serious about it – sorry.

  48. jon Says:

    Wyo. must adapt, candidate for governor says

    http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/articles/2010/06/12/news/friday/news02.txt

    If the state dropped its lawsuit against the federal government over the de-listing of wolves, they could be off the list in a matter of weeks or months. Petersen would encourage the Game and Fish Department to agree to classify wolves as a trophy animal, similar to what Idaho did, instead of tying the matter up in court for years. The change would take the wolf off the Endangered Species List quickly and would open hunting seasons to manage populations.

    “We’ve gotten so invested in this lawsuit that I don’t know if we can get out of it,” Petersen said.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      I still feel that Wyoming doesn’t really want to manage wolves. Instead want the feds to kick around as a political issue.

    • jon Says:

      The longer WY keeps fighting the feds, the bigger the wolf population is going to get. WY should stop this nonsense and just tells the feds they will classify wolves as trophy animals. Wyoming is its own worst enemy.

  49. jon Says:

    cats plays with fawn, deer attacks neighborhood dog and cat video

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c7d_1276763978

  50. Si'vet Says:

    JB, I used that example because proving a wolf kill, days weeks or months after it happened is impossible, I also used that number, because it was relevant to what a rancher spoke of in a forum in which I attended, also on the panel of the forum was Ralph, and I believe Brian Etrz. Don’t believe me just ask the other 2 folks present. He was a tall thin fellow in a black cowboy hat, whom you could tell was very emotional, and hadn’t spoke in front of a group much if any, I have no reason to BS you JB. Check me, the number was actually way above 4 vs 12.

  51. jon Says:

    Alberta blamed for bear attack on donkeys

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/06/16/edmonton-grizzly-donkey-attack.html

    Bear attacks no novelty in Canada

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/813747

    Bear attacks man in Ontario cottage country

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/05/19/ontario-bear-attack.html

    Seems like there’s been quite of few bear attacks in recent months.

  52. Si'vet Says:

    JB, forgot to add,”who wins the heart of the girl”. No not the point. Even if the cow thought the Shiras bull “cuter, more handsome or sexier” the Canadian bull will prevail, beat the crap out of the Shiras moose and pass on his genes. Why, because he is more dominant, “bigger” and because he can. The point is; wolves from Canada, have evolved, just like the moose. I’m not “antiwolf” in fact had the 10’s of millions of dollar spent were “first” spent on trying to propagate the wolf that was already here, I’ll bet dollars to donuts, we wouldn’t be at the odds we are now. But spend 60+ million on an introduced wolf, that can reproduce and cause this much damage, in this short of time. Well, here we are.

    • jon Says:

      You are buying into the typical anti wolf rhetoric si’vet. These wolves are not introduced. They were coming down into Idaho on their own from Canada for years before humans helped speed the process up of them coming over. All that happened is that some people helped speed the process up. There particular issue has been discussed on here more times I can count. It is a myth that comes from the wolf haters that refuses to die. These wolves are not illegal and they sure as hell ain’t as big as some would have you believe. Even the anti-wolf biologist from Canada Valerius Guist (spelling?) said that wolves were well on their way down whether humans helped bring them over or not.

    • jon Says:

      Myth and Science

      Ron Gillette, leader of the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition, says: “The wolves introduced into Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are EXOTIC CANADIAN gray wolves. Idaho’s gray wolves are extinct. The Canadian strain is larger and more aggressive.”

      Dr. Doug Smith, Yellowstone Wolf Project Leader, says: On the “Canadian” wolf thing. Bob Wayne, who is the leading expert on canid genetics in the world from UCLA, just did an analysis that completely discredits the “they reintroduced a foreign wolf that was not here”. Bob’s work shows that genetic variation for wolves is on a continuim from Mexico to the arctic, in other words wolves are not easily put into categories like this wolf is of this kind and this ine is different. They all are very similar and hard to split apart, esp wolves from Alberta to MT. I can go into more detail if it comes up for you again, but another thing to remember, taxonomy is a human contruct and it works pretty well down to the species level, but below that you run into trouble I think and there is a lot more Gray.

      Ed Bangs, USFWS, says: “Wolves travel across the border all the time. Canadian and American gray wolves are the same creature .

      Ron Gillett says: “Each wolf kills up to 24 game animals a year, kills twice that many for the sport of it, and also follows elk herds, killing calves immediately after birth.

      Ed Bangs says: “Each wolf kills the equivalent of 12 cow elk a year. In Idaho, that would be about 16 ungulates, elk and deer. Wolves very occasionally kill more than they eat, but sport killing is a popular myth. Some wolves are killed each year by being kicked by elk.

      Ron Gillette says: “Wolves kill the big-game animals in an area, then other predators and finally cannibalize other wolves.

      Ed Bangs says: “Wolves kill enough to eat. They limit their concentrations to about 10 wolves in 300 square miles. They move to new areas rather than crowd one place. They are not cannibals.

    • JB Says:

      Si’vet:

      You would lose that bet, whether dollars or donuts.

      Your moose analogy fails for a number of reasons, but mostly because wolves and moose are not the same. It isn’t always the biggest wolves that are most dominant, nor the best hunters. Case in point: The wolves on Isle Royal, though about 10-15 lbs smaller than western wolves on average, survive almost entirely on moose (there are no other ungulates on the Island and there is no in nor out migration).

      The wolves that were taken from Canada and reintroduced in the NRMs were eating the same type of prey (mostly elk) as they encounter here in the NRMs–they were selected for reintroduction partially for this reason. If you chose to believe that these wolves are genetically superior (in terms of their hunting ability) to the wolves that were extirpated, that is your prerogative. Just know that no scientist (nor any informed person) will take you seriously once you start in with the “super-wolf” rhetoric. It is ridiculous propaganda.

  53. Layton Says:

    jon,

    Your quote :

    “Bob Wayne, who is the leading expert on canid genetics in the world from UCLA, just did an analysis that completely discredits the “they reintroduced a foreign wolf that was not here”. Bob’s work shows that genetic variation for wolves is on a continuim from Mexico to the arctic, in other words wolves are not easily put into categories like this wolf is of this kind and this ine is different. They all are very similar and hard to split apart, esp wolves from Alberta to MT.”

    If I were to accept that as fact, I guess the next question that I would ask would be — If all this genetic mixing – from Canada to Mexico — is going on, why is the “lack of genetic exchange” a large part of the current (IMHO unnecessary and illegitimate) lawsuit to re-list the wolf??

    Oh, and by the way, here’s ANOTHER question that you have ignored – why don’t you come up with a set and answer some questions?? I asked this further up and you kinda completely ignored it.

    “I guess that I am to assume – from your recent comments – that, if a predator of some type – wolf, bear, mtn. lion, etc., is either currently IN an area or MOVES into an area that all bets are off?? I mean to say that the area now belongs to the predator/endangered critter and it’s “people beware”??

    Helluva deal!!”

    • jon Says:

      Layton, I get the feeling you do not like me. Layton, didn’t you read my other comments to you? I said I have never seen a wolf in the wild, but since you seen one a couple of times, does that somehow make you some kind of wolf expert? What set you off is me speaking the truth by saying that wolf haters make wolves out to be much more dangerous than they really are. Answer me Layton, have wolves killed any people in Idaho or Montana or Wyoming? They been there since 95 and not one human fatality, so what is your problem with the comment I made about wolf haters making wolves out to be much more dangerous than they really are? I never once said I was a wolf expert. You just assumed that man. I don’t care what you accept as fact. That info came from Bob Wayne, deny it, call it a lie. It doesn’t matter.

    • jon Says:

      Animals are going to go where they want to go Layton. Animal/human conflict is always going to be a problem.

    • jon Says:

      Numerous people on here will tell you they are the same wolves, but people like you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless how many people tell you different. This is an issue that has been beaten to death on here and other places as well. It’s one of those myths from the anti-wolf crowd that refuse to let that myth die. Wolves don’t care about borders Layton just incase you don’t know that. Actually, everytime wolves are brought up, that is the first thing wolf haters say, these wolves are more aggressive much bigger non native canadian wolves. They supposedly stalk children by bus stops according to the anti wolf haters Layton. No one is safe anymore man.🙂

    • Layton Says:

      Jon,

      You are a compulsive question avoidance specialist. Just answer the questions!! Don’t try to spin things, simple yes or no answers would do nicely.

    • Save bears Says:

      I think it is right to require it….

    • Wyo Native Says:

      And how far did that bill get in the 2010 legislative session????

      I stand a better chance of getting elected Governor of Wyoming through write in votes, than a bill like that passing the state legislature.

    • Save bears Says:

      Wyo,

      They said that about seat belt laws, and now all 50 states have laws on the books that require you to wear a seat belt..go figure, in this society, if people won’t take the responsibility, the government with force it down your throat..

    • Wyo Native Says:

      Have you been to Wyoming lately? A bill of this nature does not stand a chance in this state with our current political climate.

      Like I said, how far did it make it during the 2010 legislative session? It even stands a smaller chance in the future with the likely hood of a Republican Governor and the GOP picking up several seats in the legislature.

    • Save bears Says:

      I was in Wyoming on Monday, but for only a few hours…so didn’t get to experience the political climate..

  54. jon Says:

    http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_bad1a710-7be6-11df-9932-001cc4c002e0.html

    The bear that was killed was the one that killed the hiker.

    • jon Says:

      Servheen said he decided late Friday to authorize killing the bear if it could not be captured, because experts could not definitively determine whether the animal’s actions were natural and defensive or aberrant and unusually aggressive.

  55. jon Says:

    This caught my eye sb.

    Servheen said bears attacking humans as part of their natural aggression, such as protecting their young, aren’t automatically hunted down and killed”.

    • Save bears Says:

      Do you believe me now? The guy in charge of the whole mess said exactly what I said earlier today…I know Chris, have worked with Chris and know for a fact that not all bears are killed..geeze…

    • jon Says:

      Yeah, I still think there has been instances where bears were killed in the past for attacking people to protect their cubs, but I think the majority of the time in cases like that, the bears are spared. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be because bears and other animals should have a right to defend their cubs and families. No one can expect a bear to not defend their cubs. sb, is Servheen considered one of the top bear biologists in the world? He must be. Everytime I read something about bears, he is always mentioned. He must know his stuff without a doubt.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Chris knows his stuff, and I consider him a master of balancing the politics and the real world, now there are other biologists out there that have far more field experience and are published more, but Chris, despite his very politically charged position does know what he is doing..

  56. jon Says:

    One other thing sb, do you know if the bear that killed Timmy Treadwell and his girlfriend was hunted down and killed? Did they ever find out why the bear ate him and his girlfriend? Was it just a hungry bear? That was an accident waiting to happen. Wild animals and humans should not mix. What a horrible way to go out.

    • jon Says:

      sb, I am sure you can agree with this as you experienced it, but these biologists especially the wolf and bear ones have very stressful and hard and tiring jobs. They have to put up with politics and a host of other things that make their job very hard and tiresome. Biologists trying to please both sides is a very difficult thing and I am sure they are drained from the job by the time they get home.

    • Save bears Says:

      Yes, they killed the bear that killed Tim and his girlfriend, it was not hunted down, it was killed on the on the pile it had made to store Tim’s body, it was a bear that had been previously tattooed, if I remember correctly it was a 22 year old bear, it was an interior bear and something that Tim had never experienced before, he was used to coastal bears, that normally have a lot of food at that time of the year..Tim overstayed his welcome and virtually did everything you are not suppose to do, he stayed to late and it literally bit him in the ass..

    • Angela Says:

      I disagree with saying “wild animals and humans should not mix.” Timothy Treadwell spent 13 summers in close contact with grizzlies and had no problems. That he finally got killed while engaging in this risky behavior is no different from a climber or extreme skier or helicopter pilot dying while doing what they love. The helicopter pilots that flew us daily in Alaska assumed they would die in a helicopter accident–they called it “retiring.” Humans and wild animals evolved together and I think humans have a right to interact with wild animals even if they get killed. So what, people die. They get killed more often from driving on a freeway. I have always thought it would be the best way to go, actually. But I wouldn’t choose a grizzly. I would pat a wild elephant and let it kneel on my chest. Given the chance to do it all over again, I bet Timothy would choose to do what he loved. It should not be okay to interact with wild animals solely by killing them. Hunters occasionally get killed while hunting too. We have learned a great deal about animals from ethologists who lived with them in their natural habitat for years–take Jane Goodall for example.

    • jon Says:

      I don’t think humans should be interacting with wild animals especially carnivores. It is a recipe for disaster Angela and it will most likely end in both human and animal being killed. Wild animals are unpredictable. Timmy Trewdwell bought into the bears are harmless stuff and well, we know what happened to him and his g/f. Humans should leave wild animals alone.

    • Angela Says:

      So people should avoid entirely areas where large carnivores live? Or they shouldn’t be allowed to study them in the wild even if they are only observing them, as naturalists have done for hundreds of years? What is dangerous to you, e.g., a rattlesnake, might not be considered dangerous to a herpetologist. Animals may be unpredictable, but less so to someone who spends a lifetime studying them. All three of the pioneering scientists studying the great apes lived in direct contact with them. I’m not advocating that people do what Timothy did, but he did what he loved under his own free will, and that girl presumably had the choice not to accompany him. Yes, they killed the bear, but there were trophy hunters out there anyway. We just have to agree to disagree on this one😉

    • jon Says:

      No, I don’t think they should avoid them, but the wild animals should be given their space and it is not really wise to try to interact with a wild unpredictable animal although I do understand that sometimes people may get the urge to do so.

  57. Save bears Says:

    Jon,

    The demands placed on biologists working on the most controversial issues is amazing, I am amazed that most of them make it long enough to retire, you have to figure out what the public wants, what the law requires and how your supervisor wants you to act or say, and for the most part, all you can do is try to cover your ass, because no matter what you do, you know one of the trilogy is not going to be happy…wildlife management is a tough job to get into now a days and it is getting harder every single year..

    For the most part, I am very glad I don’t work for an agency any longer, I can say what I feel without any fear of reprisal, I can’t have my job taken away from me, they can’t hurt my family. And I can actually for the most part enjoy being in the woods…the jobs I take now a days are guaranteed by contract and not bullshit, I make far less money, but enjoy it quite a bit more..

    • jon Says:

      Yeah, plus the politics is probably what keeps some people away from becoming biologists. that is what is important sb, enjoying it. Less stress, much less bs to put up with you don’t have to deal with the politics. I would imagine your life is much better off without having to put up with the bs and the politics that you faced. You try to do the right thing and they axe you for it.

    • Angela Says:

      After reading this information from several sources last night, and watching the turtle biologist describe the situation, it didn’t sound too “alleged” to me. Can you imagine what would happen if you or I took a Kemp’s Ridley and burned it alive? My friend monitoring the situation for the American Birding Association documented that BP workers repeatedly drove through a Least Tern colony, crushing active nestlings and eggs, even after the colony was marked off by ornithologists from LSU.

  58. WM Says:

    Prairie dogs in NM take over grave yard after nearby construction disrupts their home. Video. What to do as human body parts are excavated to the surface by the prairie dogs?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37813874#37813874

    jon or Mike, you guys are the wildlife managers for this human-wildlife conflict situation. What decision are you going to make for the dogs while the public watches your every move?

  59. Rita K. Sharpe Says:

    WM,Do we really need this question to Jon and Mike.If they comment they comment;no need to provoke it.

    • WM Says:

      Rita,

      You are probably right. I was thinking of it more as a learning opportunity to illustrate the often difficult and thankless choices that confront wildlife managers. This is a point lost on some, who are often quick to criticize the actions of professionals caught between a rock and a hard spot.

  60. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    Just back from a few weeks spent in the Namibian desert. Not so easy to update oneself on this blog. The active “Have you seen…” thread alone has more than 200 responses, the last one, still fresh to me, also, with the grizzly mauling thread not far behind in numbers! Did I really hope the oil spill nightmare would be over in the meantime? A bit naïve for sure. Back to reality !

    • Angela Says:

      oh lucky you! I didn’t spend any time in eastern Namibia, but a month in the Caprivi. I am guessing you had a good trip? I absolutely loved Namibia and the people there. Nothing quite like walking alone in the bush and coming up on a herd of Sable Antelope or listening to hippos while you sleep. I hope to go back someday, but to spend more than a month or two.

  61. Mike Says:

    Sorry, a black bear cub, not a grizzly cub.

  62. Mike Says:

    Ehh..now Yellowstone says it was a grizzly. There have been way too many “mishaps” lately. I think it’s time for a pause in all of these activities until they can be properly evaluated.

    • Elk275 Says:

      The bear had been fatally injured before the trapping incident. The injury sounds like it was another bear and the cub was 20 pounds instead of the 40 pounds that it should have been. It would have died within a week in the wilds.

    • jon Says:

      These “wildlife experts” should just leave the bears alone.

    • Mike Says:

      Jon –

      It’s at that point, isn’t it?

    • cc Says:

      NPS press release on the grizzly cub: http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/10049a.htm

      Among other things it points out the life threatening injuries the cub had suffered, that it was hanging around the populated Old Faithful area, that they captured it to determine if it could be helped, and the change in protocol that has since been implemented.

      Had they left it alone it would have died a slow death and/or been fed by some idiot tourist. And they would’ve been criticized for leaving it alone, something along the lines of “you interfere with wildlife for research, how come you don’t interfere to help them?”

  63. Mike Says:

    And this makes it less bad how?

  64. Mike Says:

    That’s two dead bears caused by researchers around Yellowstone in a few days. Toss in the two mountain goats from Glacier, the horrible grizzly bear family slaughter in Glacier last year along with the disastrous and incompetent cracker shell death of a black bear in GNP and we are looking at a very, very sick system of wildlife management that needs to be immediately halted and evaluated.

  65. Elk275 Says:

    Mike

    There are people in the picture whether you like it not they will come first

  66. steve c Says:

    I just watched “Gasland” on HBO about the damage natural gas drilling is doing to this country (damage that they are not responsible for because of Cheney’s 2005 energy bill). There are people from Wyoming to PA who can light their drinking water on fire. Dick Cheney should be in prison.

  67. Taz Alago Says:

    NE Oregon Imnaha pack may have lost alpha male:
    http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/News/Local-News/Missing-alpha-male-wolf-concerns-biologists

    Also, the lethal control measure was extended again through 6/24. They really want to kill some of these wolves.

    • Taz Alago Says:

      One reason not to kill alpha wolves (if this is what happened to the alpha male) is that pack behaviour may change for the worst. In this case, no collared wolves were associated with stock attacks (both alphas are collared), so if the new alpha male is one of those who attacked livestock, the whole pack may take up the practice. This might please some of the local ranchers who would then call for the pack to be eradicated.

  68. jon Says:

    Wolves’ boldness keeps village on edge

    http://www.thedutchharborfisherman.com/article/1023wolves_boldness_keeps_village_on_edge

    “We’re used to having wild animals in town,” Murphy said. “We get bears in town all the time, that’s pretty much the norm. But bears are pretty much predictable, we’re used to bears. But this wolf thing, it makes me worry. My son will be 3 pretty soon, it makes me nervous.”

    Wolf Hunt Reax: ODFW Not Playing By The Rules

    http://www.naturaloregon.org/2010/06/21/wolf-hunt-reax-odfw-not-playing-by-the-rules/

    What’s upsetting environmental groups is that ODFW has extended the hunting order for a second time, even though it admits that the wolf pack appears to be moving away from privately owned pasture. It’s also been more than two weeks since the last attack.

    “Killing two wolves that may or may not have been involved in livestock depredations more than two weeks ago is a purely punitive act,” says Noah Greenwald, with the Center for Biological Diversity. “With so few wolves, Oregon cannot afford to kill these two individuals.”

  69. cc Says:

    Newly released USFWS report on demographic/economics of trout fishing:

    http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=5B23EA13-081A-6DCA-B45A3C901776387B

  70. jon Says:

    Geologist survives bear mauling near Alaska Range lodge

    Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/06/22/1335399/geologist-survives-bear-mauling.html#ixzz0rcJyUl4U

    Dog intervenes in grizzly attack, but bear is eventually shot

    Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/05/31/1301997/dog-intervenes-in-grizzly-attack.html#ixzz0rcKA9bL3

    Read what this hunter said sb.

    “People get so complacent and they think the bear is a little teddy bear. They aren’t.”

    This is the info most likely spread around by “bear experts” All people need to realize that wild animals are unpredictable and sometimes even dangerous.

    http://www.adn.com/2010/05/31/1301997/dog-intervenes-in-grizzly-attack.html

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      What do you base you opinion that this was spread around by “Bear Experts” more likely it was spread around by people like you, that have no experience and no understanding..

    • jon Says:

      You do not understand sb, you do not need experience to know bears are dangerous. Do you get that? and guess what, hunters will tell you the same thing I am. They will tell you bears are dangerous and that some people gobble up all the incorrect info they get about bears from these bear experts and look at bears as harmless teddy bears you just want to hug. Experience or no experience, it doesn’t change the facts that bears are dangerous.

    • jon Says:

      ask all of the hunters that were attacked by grizzlies if they think grizzlies are dangerous sb.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Anyone with half a brain knows that large animals with teeth and claws are dangerous..as I said, that is why biologists teach people to not approach, not feed, keep clean camps, don’t crowd, put your bird feed up, don’t leave your garbage out, keep the pet food where they can get it, etc.

      How freaking hard is that to understand? Again, I don’t know of a biologist that is telling people that large animals with long teeth and claws are not dangerous, please point out where you have heard or read this?

      And yes, I know some people with gobble up all the incorrect information they can, you are a perfect example of that!

    • Save bears Says:

      All the hunters I know that have been attacked, never though grizzlies were not dangerous, what is your point here?

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Please just for shits and giggles, point out one article, one book, one statement you have personally heard or read, that a bear biologist or any biologist for that matter, said, bears are not dangerous and they won’t attack, please, just one example, can you do that?

    • jon Says:

      email me when you can sb, we will talk. I don’t want to keep going on and on with you on here. My email is jonwilson33@yahoo.com

      you can send me those pictures of your bow too.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      I may email you, but why not just post it here, so the rest of us have the benefit of seeing the information…I don’t understand what your trying to prove here, but I don’t know any of the people who work with bears that say, they are not dangerous..

    • jon Says:

      sb, are you familiar with Mark mcnay?

      today.

      “Certainly, over the years, there have been interactions that weren’t
      positive for people,” Golden said. “That said, it’s pretty remarkable how
      few encounters there are, considering how abundant they are. We haven’t had
      many issues with them compared with bears.”

      Golden said Mark McNay, a recently retired research biologist for his
      agency, studied the issue after a wolf attacked a 6-year-old boy near Icy
      Bay, Alaska, in 2000. Golden said McNay’s conclusions are accepted and
      well-respected by other biologists in Alaska.

      McNay’s paper, “A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and
      Canada,” challenges the assumption that healthy wolves in North America pose
      little threat to humans.

      As I said before, they don’t come out and say directly that predators pose no risk to humans, they will say something like they pose very little risk, which is basically like saying they are not a threat to humans, in my mind anyways. also sb, they don’t want the public to be afraid when going into the wild to hike camp or whatever. They know if they said that, they would face backlash by the public if an attack were to happen.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      it is quite obvious you and I have a completely different thought process, there is no way to come out and say, if you go camping, hunting, fishing, etc. your going to be attacked, but we can say, the possibility, though rare does exist that you could be attacked or killed.

      Heck I know of a couple cases of guys being killed by deer while hunting, I know of cases where people have been killed by Moose, Bison, Lions, Bears, Elk, etc.

      I again, don’t know anyone that is promoting that wildlife is or can’t be dangerous…that seems to be something you have come up with..

    • Save bears Says:

      And of course, I can add, you can be killed driving down the road, you can be killed in an airplane crash, you could be struck by lightening, there is nothing in this world, you can be killed by..

      Life is risky, and many people are killed every year, by many different things…

    • jon Says:

      sb, this is just the vibe I get. If you don’t agree with it, that’s alright. I will say that is most likely more so the advocates for the animals they love that try to paint their favorite animals as animals that are capable of doing no harm to people. I don’t think any biologist will justt come out and say that predators will never attack people and present no threat what so ever to them, but they have said that they present little threat to us. I agree that attacks depending on which animal you are talking about are rare, but the point I am making is that they do happen depending on the circumstances. I believe there is a lot of incorrect misinformation being spread around out there by people with their own agendas.

    • jon Says:

      sb, check your email.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Can you tell me, that your not trying to spread your agenda?

    • jon Says:

      Everyone has an agenda sb. People with the same agenda as me usually don’t admit that predators are dangerous. They usually claim they are harmless. Check your email. It’s important.

    • Save bears Says:

      already replied

  71. jon Says:

    Bear encounters create dispute over trail status

    http://www.adn.com/2010/06/16/1327231/bear-conflicts-create-dispute.html

    Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan said the city has no intention of doing that, arguing that people should use their own judgment rather than the city stepping in and declaring the trail off-limits.

    “It really becomes a good common sense thing for the public to use their good common sense when an area has been identified … when there’s potential danger there,” he said.

  72. jon Says:

    Man mauled after smoking pot can get workers’ compensation

    http://bannedontheweb.com/man-mauled-after-smoking-pot-can-get-workers-compensation/

  73. Save bears Says:

    BC Photographer, survives charge from Grizz with cub…

    Be sure and read some of the comments

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/20/bc-grizzly-charge-leon-lorenz.html#socialcomments

    • Linda Hunter Says:

      Very cool footage of this . . reminds me of charges I have seen when I didn’t have a gun. This photographer was cool in my opinion but you could tell right away from her body language that he scared the bear when she caught his sent. She was making a defensive charge for sure. I am glad someone caught that on film. Some of the comments are really interesting. It seems like there are people who get really really mad when someone else gets close to wildlife. I have never understood this emotion which doesn’t seem to make sense unless it is some kind of weird jealously or something. Some of the people who expressed completely unreasonable hate for Tim Treadwell seem to lurk on the internet ready to turn their fire hose of hatred to anyone who gets close to bears for instance. I also loved the fact that this man caught the sound a bear makes during a charge as it has so inaccurately been reported many many times. This film looked very real and familiar to me.

    • Angela Says:

      I have always wondered about those folks too, Linda.

  74. Elk275 Says:

    That was interesting. He is one of the few people in Canada that is licence to carry a handgun in the bush.

  75. WM Says:

    A relative, who is a civil engineeer, was doing land survey work in the back-country of MT, about 15 years ago. He had a bad encounter with a grizzly that charged him (bear spray not widely available then). He fired over the bear’s head at the beginning of the charge and the noise from the .44 magnum was enough to break the charge and scare it off. He, however, had the necessary skill, if necessary, to make as good a stand as anyone, since he was a competitive pistol shooter in college, and still made it to the range or practiced 2-3 times a month, while he was doing field work. He has repeatedly told me, he did not want to shoot the bear and was glad he was able to diffuse the situation.

    He has had other grizzly and black bear encounters in thirty years as a surveyor and forest engineer, but this was the most dramatic.

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      I wish I had footage of a particular sow that put the fear into me, in an area where bears would seldom have a chance to see a human.

      Late one evening, two other guys and I were taking a shortcut on a bear trail through a dark wooded area on our way downriver to camp after a day counting cohos up to the headwaters springs and trickles. The trail momentarily jogged down off a bench and as I glanced ahead up the next little rise, I saw a sow sitting back against a tree with a younger bear beyond. She swung her head and looked down at us and her jaw dropped and her eyes bugged out with a look of abject horror. The next second she was charging down the slope, all bristled up like a porcupine and yelling at the top of her lungs. The three of us quickly lined up side-by-side working our bolts like a firing squad and it just seemed certain we were going to have to shoot. But when she hit our level she paused about 30 feet away, bouncing down hard on her front legs and still loudly vocalizing, I glimpsed what seemed a change in expression from bug eyed rage to maybe taking a slight measure of things. She backed up a few yards and ran back down, stopped again, moved back up, came down again. Then, for her most impressive act she stood up and gripped a spruce tree with both paws at what I judged to be about neck height on me – and just ripped it down on both sides. It was quite a sight watching bark shower off against a backdrop of evening sky. It was a perfect demonstration and I’ve never received a message more clearly. Then a second hapless tree got the same treatment. About that time, I heard a faint voice from the river 60-70 feet away saying “Let’s go!” and unstuck my feet to catch up with the other guys. While hotfooting down the river, we could still hear her back on that knoll yelling over the rush of water – minutes later and hundreds of yards away.

    • Angela Says:

      wow, great description. interesting displacement behavior!

    • Ryan Says:

      No the bear wasn’t killed or harmed (gun used to scare the bear) to my understanding, that’d make you shit your pants though.

    • Linda Hunter Says:

      Ryan interesting video. What was most interesting is that the guy thought he was going to die. Charges in water are difficult for bears and they usually stop short when they get chest deep as an attack at that point would put them at disadvantage especially on a whole group of guys. It would have been cool to see what happened if the shot was not fired or if they used pepper spray. Can we ask them to go back and shoot the film again? 🙂

  76. Angela Says:

    With all the love of documentaries in recent years, I have been wondering why nobody has done one on the bison. Well, now they have!
    http://www.highplainsfilms.org/fp_bison.html

    • Save bears Says:

      Actually Angela,

      There have been quite a few shows done on bison over the years, I have been in two of them, but unfortunately, they don’t seem to be widely accepted and most people in the country in reality have little awareness of what happens to the bison…

      It is amazing, during the summer how many people I talk to in Yellowstone who are visiting, have never heard anything about bison..

    • Angela Says:

      I miss a lot of things.😉 What are the names of them? I’d love to see if I can find them on the web. Although sometimes I pass on watching movies like this because I just can’t bear to see animals suffering. It’s shameful how we treat the bison and I can never figure out why other people seem to have no feelings at all for them.

      We were shown “Bless the Beasts and Children” in school back in the early 70s. I don’t remember much except being almost overcome with anxiety beforehand, because the rumors had already gone around that it showed buffalo being shot.

      I sound like a real pussy, I know. The older I get, the more sensitive I am to how humans treat animals and the land. It’s like I almost can’t stand the sadness sometimes. Like the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is being filled with oil.

  77. jon Says:

    Our Thoughts on Montana’s Proposed 2010 Wolf Hunt

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/our_thoughts_on_montanas_propo.html

    This spring, however, FWP instituted new lethal control guidelines, allowing USDA-Wildlife Services to kill wolves at suspected wolf depredation sites without getting permission from FWP. A hunt on top of increased lethal control, especially a hunt that more than doubles or nearly triples last year’s quota, is irresponsible. When implementing changes, FWP should be more conservative and evaluate results before instituting additive changes.

    • jon Says:

      Finally, there are two rules in the wolf hunt proposal that NRDC supports: (1) any illegal killings (poaching) will be subtracted from the hunting quota; and (2) any “over-run” of the quota in an individual sub-unit will be subtracted from the quota in the larger hunting district.

      Yeah, how about subtracting those wolves killed by wildlife services as well?

  78. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    A Arizona, restaurant makes headlines in the European media for offering burgers made from African lions (farm raised!) in honour of the worldcup in SA.
    http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-49555020100623
    A real bargain for $21.

    • Angela Says:

      I can just see a couple at the restaurant; “how’s the lion tonight; is it fresh? oh, it’s farmed lion? no thanks, we only eat wild.”

      It seems a little more appropriate to be serving Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle soup with Brown Pelican eggs right now.

      I don’t remember seeing lion on the menu in Africa. It’s just not right.

    • Peter Kiermeir Says:

      Angela,
      I also did not find lion, or large cat in general, on the menue of the restaurants in South Africa, where you would probably expect it in the upper class restaurants of the major cities. Maybe available on request, but I did not ask. On the other hand, it seams to be readily available in Europe and the US if you google around. On other threads on this blog here, we already discussed that cat (in this case cougar) is eaten in America. Maybe people are more decadent here. In another news article I recently read that at the main Paris Airport alone nearly 300 tons of true bushmeat, mainly from Central Africa, Cameroun or Congo, is confiscated annually. And this can consist of almost everything, from ape parts to exotic reptiles. Bon appétit.

    • Angela Says:

      I read that statistic about the bush meat recently too. I have to admit I was pretty surprised. I must have missed the “eating cougar” thread, but I am relatively new here. It just seems weird to me to eat large carnivores. Did you try any mopane worms? Now *that* I understand, but couldn’t bring myself to eat them even though I knew I would have to face my former entomology professor and disappoint him.

    • Peter Kiermeir Says:

      Yes, I tried the mopane worms. I knew already what it is. And they do not look very exotic. Other more innocent guests asked and got the reply “Oh, well, we pick that from the trees……”
      The locals eat them like potato chips. Not much taste in it – perhaps with a little bit more salt…….

    • Peter Kiermeir Says:

      Found a new article on this subject on CNN online this morning. Seems the source of the lion meat is not so transparent as thought earlier.
      http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/23/smallbusiness/world_cup_lion_burger/

  79. WM Says:

    Interesting article that ties together the uncomfortable tension of grizzly population expansion in the West, Servheen, NRDC’s Willcox, and the recent announcement of grizzly going into protected status in Alberta. A pitch for new grizzly book, too. Anyone read it yet?

    http://thetyee.ca/Books/2010/06/23/GrizzlyManifesto/

    • jon Says:

      This, of course, did not enhance the popularity of the grizzly bear recovery coordinator or the environmentalists that used the law to staunchly defend the grizzly bear. Servheen began getting hate mail and threatening phone calls. Public meetings often saw slanderous tirades, and personal insults were thrown every which way. Threats of violence were also not unheard of, as more than a few environmental advocates working in rural locales tell of vandalism and bullet holes in their walls.

      Being a bear biologist is not easy.

    • Save bears Says:

      Unfortunately Jon,

      It don’t matter which side your on, if your a biologist, you are assured, you will always make someone unhappy and both sides have guns, rocks and sticks!

      Being biologist, guarantees one thing…no matter which way you go, your always going to be hated!

      LOL

  80. jon Says:

    How Legal Was The Introduction Of Canadian Wolves Into The Northern Rockies?

    http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/Lobo_Watch/How_Legal_Was_The_Introduction_Of_Canadian_Wolves_Into_The_Northern_Rockies.shtml

    How does it feel to have sportsmen provided dollars used, without any authorization whatsoever, to dump huge Canadian wolves into one of the richest wildlife areas of America – and to destroy the last hundred years of wildlife conservation? Those attending Jim Beers’ presentation felt that those who headed this theft and the deceit of the Wolf Recovery Project should be held legally responsible – and should do some time behind bars.

    • Ken Cole Says:

      What’s the point of posting this stuff here? We know that these people are unreasonable and that any time you provide them with facts they claim that it was a conspiracy. My feeling is that the more attention their rubbish gets the more shit they will make up.

  81. Devin Says:

    This video makes it appear as though it is raining OIL in some parts of Louisiana. With such an ecological cluster f@#$#, it amazes me that Obama can claim that the beaches will be restored to pristine conditions and left in even better shape. It is going to take much more than hopium to fix these ecosystems. Just my opinion.

    • Ken Cole Says:

      I don’t think this is a realistic explanation. Oil and water don’t have the same ability to evaporate. I think this is just oil from leaking cars and the roadway. Oil accumulates and if it hasn’t rained in a long time there would be more oil on the roads. It doesn’t take much.

      As far as it being an “ecological cluster f@#$#”, I agree.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      It doesn’t show the puddles next the the houses away from the streets. That is where oil in the water would be more impressive.

    • Salle Says:

      Actually, I think there is good evidence that the fumes from a prolonged release, as is taking place there, which includes a massive effort to burn off a major load could actually carry through a rain storm and be a more intense situation that acid rain since none of this oil has been refined… not to mention the dispersant chemicals. If you have ever been around large quantities of petroleum whether it’s crude or some refined product, any large amount spewing over a period of weeks like this, you could see how this current spill could easily present such a condition. I am certain that this is possible, from the experience I have with such substances. Besides, it’s hot and humid there much of the time, you can only mix so much other stuff in that sort of atmospheric setting before it all comes back to the ground.

  82. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    Over on Alan Gregory´s blog there is a fresh link to an article dealing with the recent losses of Florida Panthers to car traffic. The article highlights, amongst other issues like habitat loss, the lack of underpasses and the resistance of hunters and anglers against fences and underpasses. This is – at least to me – a new facet. Interesting reading (including – as almost always – the comment section). http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/deadly-weekend-for-florida-panthers-as-cars-kill-three/1097921

  83. jon Says:

    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Giant_Bear/

    Has anyone ever heard of this story? sb and others, give me your take on this. Real or fake?

    • jon Says:

      Six hours of skinning

      Master guide Want said he was impressed with Winnen’s story.

      ”Sounds like he did everything perfectly,” Want said. ”I can’t overemphasize how many people screw that up, even after you explain it to them. After the bear drops, they stand up and pat themselves on the back, and the animal gets up and takes off while they are standing there.”

      After the kill, Winnen and Urban spent six hours skinning the bear — and trying to drag its hide and skull back to the Forest Service cabin they had rented. The meat was left behind because grizzly meat is generally considered inedible.

      I thought it was against the law to leave the meat behind? Don’t some infact eat bear meat? It is generally considered inedible?

    • Save bears Says:

      I heard of it way back when it was circulating, the guy said, yes, he took the bear, but no, it was not a man killer and it was not quite as large (as the pictures which were taken for effect) showed.

      Snoops did a piece on this story, and the site you have linked is also a hoax site.

      Yes, grizzly bear meat is eaten, I don’t know what the law in Alaska requires, I would have to look it up and don’t have the time right now..

    • Elk275 Says:

      Alaskan law does not require grizzly bear meat to be salvaged and I think bear bears are exempted after June 1, but always check regulations for the area hunted. The hunters were military and probably had very little experience skinning bears. For two people to take 6 hours skinning and packing the bear back to the cabin would not be unusual. It took me 6 hours to skin and break a bull moose down and prepare the meat for the horses.

    • Salle Says:

      Seems this story has been going around for a while and collects new details in transit, I was amazed at first but after sending the story I received to Ken, he sent me to this page:

      http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

    • jon Says:

      It’s a shame they killed that bear just for the sport of it and the bear ended up becoming their rug.

  84. Kropotkin Man Says:

    For the latest on the Shultz and Hardy fires burning outside of Flagstaff.

    http://www.azdailysun.com/

  85. Taz Alago Says:

    Oregon Cattleman’s Wolf Committee submits request of changes to Oregon Wolf Management Plan: http://wallowavalleyonline.com/main/2010/06/15/oregon-cattleman%E2%80%99s-wolf-committee-submits-request-of-changes-to-oregon-wolf-management-plan/

    It’s a zinger.

  86. Don Riley Says:

    BFC is reporting by e-mail that YNP geniuses have released a DEIS for public comment (the last day to comment is July 26) to spend $9 million over 30 years to vaccinate the entire herd for brucellosis. The vaccine has been shown to not be appropriate for buffalo due to it’s ineffectiveness, among other things.

    No link to go to

  87. Cris Waller Says:

    Idaho will use “all tools in the toolbox” to manage wolves.

    http://www.bonnersferryherald.com/articles/2010/06/24/local/doc4c23b504da220741875458.txt

    ““The real issue is how many wolves can we support,” said [Idaho F&G Commissioner]McDermott. “We don’t need wolves eating our elk.”

    Wow, what concern for the environment and ecosystems…

  88. Mike Says:

    Glacier hiker fires .357 to scare off “aggressive” deer

    http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/articles/2010/06/24/hungryhorsenews/news/news_8722689696_02.txt

    Now we have to listen to this garbage in the parks, too.

  89. Save bears Says:

    Yup Mike as long as the law says it is legal, you might have to..and there does not seem to be anything close on the horizon to change it..

  90. Mike Says:

    Firing the gun is not legal, which is why the hiker received a written warning.

    • Save bears Says:

      Mike, it is still legal to carry a gun in the park, and the only reason she was warned is the ranger investigating didn’t feel that it was an “imminent” threat, who knows what the next ranger will feel?

      Now I of course am wondering what the deer was doing that this person felt the need to resort to her gun, I am around a lot of deer and have never had one aggressive enough to cause me distress…

    • Save bears Says:

      By the way, in Glacier firing a gun can be legal, depending on the circumstances..

    • Mike Says:

      I have to ask that if the deer was too far away for bear spray, why was a .357 needed?

      Bizarre.

      I’m getting the feeling that I may need to pack a pistol to defend myself from all the other shoot-happy fools this summer when I spend two months in a tent across various national parks.

      See how this works?😉

    • Save bears Says:

      Mike I know exactly how it works… and I agree:

      “I have to ask that if the deer was too far away for bear spray, why was a .357 needed?”

      I have never been in a situation, that I felt I needed a gun to defend myself from a deer, and believe me I am around deer virtually everyday, I am hoping further information will be forth coming…

      Carry your pistol if you wish, but I will stick to my bear spray, I know it works, I am confident in it and I will continue to trust my life to it..

    • Angela Says:

      Maybe she should stay out of the woods. or carry a big stick.

  91. Save bears Says:

    Just to add, in case you didn’t get it, I don’t believe the .357 was warranted in this situation…

    • WM Says:

      Why would anyone need a gun to scare a deer? This not rutting season, and if the deer was after salt (as deer sometimes are in these often nutrient deficient forest areas), pee on a bush and make the deer happy. This whole story is nonsense.

      Not to get into a bear spray v. gun debate, but a .357 magnum is not even close to being enough gun for a full grown grizzly bear for those who are inclined to use a hand gun at all. One has to wonder what this woman was thinking, unless it was a personal safety weapon for something other than bears – like a human. Even then the bearspray would probably be a better way to incapcitate an aggressor. A bear defense hand gun should be of .41 or larger caliber and have the word magnum behind it.

    • Save bears Says:

      I don’t believe any gun was warranted in this situation!

      I really hope I can learn more about this one..

  92. David Says:

    Here’s a decent article on Black Bear/human conflicts in the Sierra Nevada.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/24/MNM31DUUFE.DTL

  93. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    Found while researching a few other things. Quite recent article in LA Times about Rhino poaching in SA: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/05/poaching-an-increasing-problem-facing-south-africas-rhinoceros-population.html

    • Angela Says:

      I think I would have stayed rolled up in a ball like a little pillbug for a lot longer than he did after the first attack!

    • WM Says:

      Angela,

      Interesting how we second guess what people in harm’s way do, from the comfort of our computer chair. This double attack does not, based on the rudimentary facts as presented, seem alot different from the retired Maryland policeman who was attacked twice by griz in WY a couple of months back.

      He, of course, was promptly chastized by a retired Yellowstone ranger who said he should have stayed down. That fellow, if I recall, had been smacked around pretty good too the first time, and took some serious injuries to his face. In the second attack, he was able to fire his revolver and hit its mark – a .41 magnum, if recall.

      What does one do, as in this case, where there is no advance display of aggression or fake charge at a distance of 25 feet, and where apparently the victim had been for awhile?

      How long do you stay down, unable to assess the extent of your injuries, and unable to locate the only possible weapon with which to defend yourself. Interesting choices people must make when your life is at stake and maybe you are not in full control of your faculties, as maybe your lifeblood is draining out of your body.

  94. Elk275 Says:

    WM

    It was a .357 magnum. It is amazing that people would use a .357 around grizzly bears when law enforcement agencies did not think the .357 had enough power for humans. The lack of conference in the .357 was the emphasis for the development of the .41 magnum. It was a failure with law enforcement but is a very useful pistol for hunting and it does have enough power for big bears at close range. This situation is where a big bore pistol and a bear spray are both needed.

    • Save bears Says:

      454 casull

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.454_Casull

      .500 magnum

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.500_S%26W_Magnum

      102 mm howitzer

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M102_howitzer

      Of course the last one could present some difficulties carrying!

      LOL

    • WM Says:

      Elk,

      Yes, the geologist in the incident in AK had a .357 magnum. I think I stated earlier somewhere in this thread that it is a really stupid choice for bear protection (the deer story above).

      I am not certain of the history of the .41 magnum. This, in fact, was the caliber the retired Maryland police officer used on the grizzly that attacked him twice while fishing in WY back in April. I have shot the .41 magnum quite a bit. And for those thinking they need a gun instead of bearspray, it would be nothing less than a .44 magnum with buffalo bore hard cast bullets. The better choice, in my view, would be a shortened (stock and barrel) pump 12 ga. shotgun with 00 buck and slugs, or bob jackson’s ranger duty rifle – a lever .45-70.

      I hope this topic doesn’t go off in the direction of which is better – gun or spray. My point was the AK geologist had better choices than the one he made for personal protection, which in the end probably didn’t make much difference regarding his fate.

    • Save bears Says:

      Well as much time as I have spent in bear country, I will keep with my spray, I know it works and I have no problem with trusting my life to it…I shot a .500 a few months ago, and I can tell you what, it is not a nice gun, it hurts, it bucks and it is just down right mean!

      LOL

    • Taz Alago Says:

      I remember a couple of years ago there was “controversy” in Alaska about whether it was better to go with or without a gun in griz country because there was reason to believe the smell of a gun angered the bears.

    • WM Says:

      Taz,

      ++I remember a couple of years ago there was “controversy” in Alaska about whether it was better to go with or without a gun in griz country because there was reason to believe the smell of a gun angered the bears.++

      Just playing devil’s advocate here, I wonder how a bear would know to be “angered” by the smell of a gun? It would appear if a gun was threat to a particular bear, the result would be the bear is dead (or wounded), thus the knowledge to be “angered” would unlikley be passed on. However, if there was a sow – cub combination, in which the cub survived and the sow did not, maybe there would be some residual. It would seem, however, that such a response would elicit fear, however.

      On the other hand, if a bear had been studied or harassed, say with rubber bullets, maybe there would be some residual of some sort. The rubber bullet scenario wouldbe unlikely in most of Alaska, although I suppose there might be some harassed at some point with rubber bullets for the purpose of driving home a dislike of people.

      Otherwise, how could a bear gain knowledge to respond in anger?

    • Taz Alago Says:

      WM – Damned if I know. Maybe the bears associate the smell of cordite and gun oil with injury or harassment as you say, and passed the dislike to their cubs. Maybe humans with guns are more aggressive or less wary of griz because they’re armed, and thus annoy the bears more often. Certainly griz have been wounded many times over the decades. Don’t know that the discussion ever resulted in a consensus.

    • pointswest Says:

      I’ll bet the geologist missed the bear completely. A .357 mag will do plenty of damage. It will break a font leg or break a jaw. Even if you have a .44 mag or 9mm, you have to be a pretty good marksman to hit a charging grizzly since it is moving up and down facing you head on and you must have nerves of steel. It is so easy to jerk the trigger on any pistol and pull aim several feet to the right. The vital parts of a grizzly, facing you head on, are generally less than 18 inches wide and 24 inches high. Not an easy target when the target is moving and dodging rocks and brush and loping up and down. It is not easy when facing a ferocious charge.

      Grizzlies try and strike terror in the hearts of their victims with their charge. They usually lay their ears back in an expression of anger, they often snarl, and sometimes let out bellows as they come humping towards you. If they can scare you, half of their job is done….or at least it is the way it appears in the video of charges I have seen.

      I would not want to be shooting at a charging grizzly even with a high powered rifle.

    • WM Says:

      Certainly not cordite. To my knowledge it has not been in use for nearly a hundred years. But, gun powder, yes.

    • Taz Alago Says:

      Ha, yes, my aged grandfather always called it cordite. Guess it stuck with me.

  95. jon Says:

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lwillcox/of_wolves_and_sisyphus.html

    This woman speaks the truth.

    As Montana contemplates doubling or almost tripling allowable wolf hunt quotas this fall, the state appears to be catering to certain special interests only, rather than taking the broader public interest into account. Just attend a Montana Game and Fish Commission meeting when wolves are discussed, and you will see for yourself the level of deference given to hunters, who are seen by the agency as its primary “clients” – even though many other Montanans hold different views and values about the state’s magnificent wildlife heritage.

  96. pointswest Says:

    F&G to begin Master Naturalist chapter in Rexburg

    There is an article in the Rexburg Standard Journal about a program for volunteers called Idaho Master Naturalist program and there will be a new chapter in Rexburg with classes starting July 13 on the campus of Brigham Young University-Idaho. It was created by the Idaho Fish and Game.

    The 40 forty hour course (plus field trips) will make you and Idaho Master Naturalist.

    As a trained Master Naturalist, you can help nature area staff and assist public and nonprofit organizations teach children and adults about nature and why conservation is important. Help with water quality studies, plant surveys, outreach in classrooms, wildlife projects, and other citizen science activities.
    On the Web: fishandgame.idaho.gov/DMS/wildlife/master_naturalist.

  97. pointswest Says:

    Friends of Teton River group start installing high tech trout monitoring sites

    There is a story in the Rexburg Standard Journal about a onganization call Friends of the Teton River based in Driggs Idaho. They are in stalling six of 13 planned Yellowstone cutthroat trout monitoring sites on Warm, Trail, Fox and Teton and Badger creeks in Teton Valley. They will monitor the migration of Yellowstone cutthroat over the next decade.

    Tags/microchips implanted in the fish and provide a unique identifying number associated with its size, condition and location of capture. When the cutthroat passes by the monitoring site, the scanner reads the information associated with the tagged fish so researches also understand the migration and travel of the fish. Having a large number of tagged fish will provide a long-term understanding of Yellowstone cutthroat and the Teton watershed.

    • pointswest Says:

      If eastern Idaho better managed their water, we could be doing the same for the lower Teton, the lower Henry’s Fork, Moody Creek, and lower Fall River along with the many sloughs that run through Maddison and Fremont counties.

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      A segment of salmon production has been headed down the same intensive path as other factory farming methods. Our brains allow us to develop the technology to raise more abundant food and more cheaply, but it puts us on a path of always having to keep one step ahead of nature and evolution, and it seems at times like we are venturing farther and farther out on a limb. If we can’t quickly come up with each needed new techno-fix, the limb may crack. Monsanto’s immediate problem is not just that round-up is going off-patent but that weeds have begun to show resistance to it. Similarly, in the farmed salmon industry, sea lice are a big problem in the open net-cage culture that farmers have fought so hard for – and have been implicated in impacting neighboring wild stocks in B.C. What seemed like the solution for the salmon farmers, the orally fed pesticide SLICE, is now losing traction as sea lice are becoming resistant to it and some are saying they may have to go to expensive closed systems.

      A wild salmon production system involving streams and open-ocean rearing is really a thing of beauty. I didn’t fully appreciate a natural spawning river until I toured the Fulton spawning channel for sockeye on Babine Lake and listened to the manager describe all the challenges they have to deal with to operate a man-made spawning river with a $650,000 annual budget. Alaska long ago banned salmon farming, but even some hatcheries that so ingeniously circumvent freshwater and early-marine limitations are facing the challenge of faltering ocean survival, as over the years they’ve developed an increasing audience awaiting the massive annual outpouring of naïve pellet-fed hatchery smolts. The most evident component of that audience is the increasing congregation of bubble-netting humpback whales that some hatchery managers have recently realized to their dismay, are not eating herring but the 100 million chums they just released. Hatchery coho smolts have been progressively underperforming wild smolts in ocean survival for the past 2 decades.

      With world populations being what they are, I don’t think society has much choice but to remain out on that limb and keep looking ahead for the next techno-fix, although at times it seems insane. It’s not a new problem, but one that dates back to the advent of agriculture over hunting and gathering. Societies that weren’t able to come up with the next techno-fix to maintain their increased population fell out of the tree. The problem is that the clearest and most inviting and profitable path is not always the best and safest in the long-run. I think its one of the reasons many of us enjoy living where we can venture back a few thousand years and gather and eat food out of the mainstream, even though it has definite limitations.

      Salmon farming greatly depressed wild salmon prices through the 1990s, reaching a very low bottom in about 2002. Since then, prices have increased substantially despite the recession and increased farm salmon supply, and are rather remarkable starting out this year (just in time for my teen-age son starting as a deck-hand). Apparently more people are beginning to differentiate salmon that chose their own diet on the open ocean to those receiving the newest formula to make them grow fast and cheaply, color their flesh pink, and ward off diseases and parasites. Beyond health concerns, some may even be choosing to support a free-flowing river over a polluting net pen.

    • pointswest Says:

      What happens when a live genetically engineered salmon slips out of someone’s hands and into a nearby creek to breed with natural salmon?

  98. Elk275 Says:

    So he wants to end trapping on public lands: “Trapping on public lands is a primary cause of low fur-bearer populations. It is a legacy industry with slight economic value. We should end it.”

    The author is a geologist; the mining law of 1872 is a legacy industry with a better economic value but a whole lot worse environment legacy. I will take trapping anyday than the mining messes from the 1800’s.

    • jon Says:

      I don’t know the exact figures, but mining creates way more jobs than trapping and it brings in more money to the economy.
      Mining>trapping

      Not even a contest.

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      I agree, Elk. A representative for a non-renewable industry that’s a purveyor of leaching acid waste on public land and waters doesn’t have much standing on this . . . acid waste is a primary cause of low fish populations (and unlike trapping, can’t be reversed by restricting future mining).

    • pointswest Says:

      Will ask again…what happens when one of these fixed salmon get into a stream. Are the engineered gene going to get into the gene pool? How does that work exactly?

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      They are supposed to be sterilized and unable to reproduce according to the New York Times article. Being Atlantic salmon, potential interbreeding would likely be more of a concern on the east coast.

      However, escapes from salmon farms in B.C. are common and have involved up to 10,000s of Atlantics in single events. They are a concern here, mainly about getting established in streams and competing with wild Pacific salmon and also potentially introducing disease. There is a public watch program for them here with regular announcements on public radio, etc. So far, a number of escaped Atlantics have been caught in marine fisheries in Alaska but I don’t believe there is any evidence they are reproducing – although a few years ago I heard that juveniles had been found in a stream in B.C. I sure wouldn’t want to see them take hold, but the niches for stream rearing salmon species are pretty well covered by coho, chinook and steelhead. Juvenile cohos are alert, aggressive and highly territorial in the stream and I doubt Atlantics would do well with them (I got a nose bleed while working on a weir anchor and quickly attracted over 100 of the little devils out of the woodwork – practically catching the drops before they hit the water).

    • pointswest Says:

      Apparently, the fish created are not “sterile females’; they choose females and then sterilize the fish. That is, genetic engineering does not preclude fertile fish nor male fish and we are talking about hundreds of millions of them all subject to human error. The following is from businessweek.com

      “Aqua Bounty’s toughest challenge has been to allay fears that if the super salmon escape into the ocean, they could start mating with their wild counterparts, ultimately wiping out the world’s entire population of wild salmon. The company may decide only to seek approval for sterile fish or for fish that are grown indoors — making such scenarios impossible. [ Ha! ] Still, to answer concerned environmentalists, AquaBounty has been collecting data that predict what might happen if their fish escaped.

      Some studies, including independent research done at Purdue University, use a combination of controlled experiments with laboratory fish and mathematical modeling to determine what characteristics a genetically modified fish would need to have to overtake wild populations. For one, male transgenic fish would need to be bigger than wild salmon to gain any advantage during mating season.

      AquaBounty’s fish grow faster, but not bigger, than regular salmon, and they’re all female anyway. All in all, says Entis, “our fish would be lousy survivors [in the wild].” The company predicts that fewer than 1% of genetically modified salmon that escape would survive to adulthood in the wild.”

      This sounds like absolute madness to me. Even if we are talking about sterilized female salmon raised in tanks, it is only a matter of time before there is a mix up or an accident or there is a prank or even eco-terrorism where these genetically altered fish end up in the ocean beside their wild counterpart. The article says, “the company predicts that fewer than 1% of genetically modified salmon that escape would survive to adulthood in the wild,” but this mean absolutely nothing. It is not important if a particular fish survives in the ocean; what’s important is if its genes survive in the gene pool. What is really important is whether or not these “engineered” genes are recessive and WILL NOT be passed forward or are dominant and WILL be passed forward and never leave the gene pool. Further, we really do not know enough about genetics to make predictions as to what might happen. In the last five years, there has been a revolution in the science with advances in epigentics. Geneticists have realized that the genes only account for a portion of reproduction and an organism’s make up and that the epigenome, which we know very little about, is at least as important as the genome in governing reproduction and the evolution of a genepool.

      The term, “genetic engineering” is, at best, a euphemism for gene hacking. Science has made some advances where we can alter genes — slice and dice between species until you finally stumble onto some desired outcome — but it is hacking and not engineering. I happen to be an engineer and I can tell you that perils lie ahead for the works of the so called “genetic engineers” of the world…I mean from an engineering standpoint.

    • pointswest Says:

      Just one more point, there are many symbiotic relationships in nature. We humans, for example, have a symbiotic relationship with certain bacteria that lives in our digestive track and we are unable to digest food without it. Many plants have symbiotic relationships with bees or, in some cases, a specific insect, to carry pollen between plants.

      There may be similar symbiotic relationship in salmon with bacteria, fungi, viruses, very small paracites, etc. and before we go releasing half understood, genetically modifided fish into the oceans, we better understand the full symbiotic impact. Something tells me that no one does understand the full impact.

      This is so crazy. It is like deep water drilling for oil, sure, those motivated by greed can make the risks seem small, but the dangers (destruction of an entire species) is very, very, very great. The negative impacts might be never ending.

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      I certainly agree we can’t put anything on promises to sterilize them all or keep any from escaping – they should be evaluated under the assumption that unsterilized fish will escape into wild populations since the presumed application will be widespread commercial farming, presumably in coastal areas. I don’t know enough to be able to hold forth much on the pitfalls of this kind of genetic engineering but believe it should be closely scrutinized under the assumption that interbreeding will potentially occur.

    • Angela Says:

      Fish farming is a crime and could have enormous impacts on other species as well as riparian forests. Grizzlies, Northern Resident Killer Whales, and Bald Eagles come to mind, but the enormous input of ocean-derived nutrients carried by the salmon up to the headwaters are key for both future generations of wild sockeye as well as the myriad other creatures that derive their energy from the carcasses either directly or indirectly, from algae to old-growth trees.

      The Fraser River lost its run of 10 million sockeye salmon last year. This is just sick.
      http://saveourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/414-aquanor
      Be sure to see the minister of the Department of Oceans and Fisheries at 4:30.

      How can we treat such an important resource like this?
      http://www.callingfromthecoast.com/
      It’s just a crying shame.

    • pointswest Says:

      You know, during the Middle Ages, salmon were so plentiful in the streams of England, that they were considered a low class food fit only for the peasantry. There were actually laws that limmited the number of times a week that salmon could be served to apprentices and tenant laborers because forcing the pesantry to eat too much salmon was considered demeaning and even cruel.

      I’m sure the streams of northern France and of Germany were also full of salmon at one time. I think they are scarce now. Salmon still run in many streams in England but there are not very many.

      It would by nice if there was a world wide push to preserve and even restore streams for wild trout and wild salmon.

      I don’t understand why they need to fish-farm in BC. If you are just feeding them and making them grow, what difference does it make where you are?

  99. Robert Hoskins Says:

    The latest drivel from the Rock:

    • jon Says:

      That rockholm character is an idiot. I would like to see his evidence that there is 5000 wolves in the 3 states.

    • WM Says:

      Viewing thisvideo was a wasted two minutes- I couldn’t get through the full 10, so can just imagine it gets worse. For certain his videography has not improved, nor his interviewing skills.

      So when is his big TA DA! moment that he promised a couple of months back?

    • Robert Hoskins Says:

      For these guys, the TA DA moment occurs in an alternate universe to which the rest of us have no access–not that we’d want access.

      It is important however to watch the entire video to get an idea of their “MO,” such as it is. They pick the most ignorant or naive wolf supporters and then gang up on them.

      RH

    • jon Says:

      I noticed that Ken Fischman was one of the people interviewed by that piss poor of an interviewer rock. He posts on here from time to time.

    • Robert Hoskins Says:

      I think the point is not to interview but rather to browbeat and bully.

      RH

    • jon Says:

      Yeah, he is a bully RH. I noticed that one guy asked him do you hate the wolves? Rock said no, I like the past wolves, but I hate these wolves.

    • pointswest Says:

      If this is typical of his work, whatever side “the Rock” is on is sure to lose. I watched this video and got the pro-wolf message and rejected anti-wolf message.

      The pro-wolf forces should distribute this video everywhere. I doubt anyone could create a better pro-wolf video.

    • JEFF E Says:

      Because I know Rock Chuck reads this blog I will address directly to him. You would do well to take a basic biology class or two. your base argument of a species designation shows you as a dumb-ass right out of the gate. for example you live in Northern Idaho where there are a small population of Woodland Caribou. To use your logic we would have to call them Canadian Woodland Caribou or United states Woodland Caribou depending on which side of the border they are found on a particular day. I know that is pretty simple but one has to pander to the audience. To be more blunt, An imaginary man made boundary DOES NOT delineate a species or sub-species…of anything. That you make that assertion only confirms that you are a fool attempting to create your own science.
      The d-grade videos that you are putting out merely confirms the obvious to the most casual observer.
      My guess is that you are trying to find someway to cash in on the situation and are busy forming some web based organization that will shortly be sending out requests for “donations” to help to continue to the “good fight”.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Jeff E

      In the west they are called Mountain Caribou and then there are some subspecies, but they keep changing there names.

      At one time the following populations were considered to be separate subspecies: osborni (Osborn caribou), from the Cassiar Mountains of northern British Columbia; montanus (mountain caribou), from southern British Columbia; fortidens (Rocky Mountain caribou), from southwestern Alberta; and sylvestris (Richardson caribou), from southwestern Northwest Territories and northern Alberta.

    • jon Says:

      Jeff, if you ask me, his t-shirts and sweatshirts are crap and overpriced. The logo for his organization is also crap.

    • JEFF E Says:

      Historically the woodland caribou ranged as far south as what is now Colorado.

    • jon Says:

      He also claims there are 4800 wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Where is he getting his estimates from? Anyone?

    • JEFF E Says:

      his backside

  100. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    Ariz. agrees to extend Mexican Wolf deal with NM
    Associated Press – June 28, 2010 6:14 AM ET
    http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12718470
    Not quite clear to me: On what did they actually agree? What does this mean for the project? Sacrificing even more wolves in this piece of conservation nightmare?

  101. Robert Hoskins Says:

    This is another ostensibly “scientific” paper on the “economic efficiency” of predator control for ranch operations from the Ag Econ Department at the University of Wyoming.

    I don’t have time to take this on. Anyone interested?

    http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/pdf/economicimpacts.pdf

  102. Barb Rupers Says:

    I don’t have enough knowledge of or interest in cattle ranching to take it on. However, to me, it appears that they have little science behind their 3 assumptions.

    Impacts from predation:
    1. death loss, (mostly on calves)
    2. reduced weaning weights
    3. increased variable costs

    The last paragraph in the study shows scientific data to support their position is lacking and that perhaps “surveys
    or interviews with representative producers could shed
    more light on how these mechanisms operate at the ranch
    level.” Is that science?

  103. jon Says:

    Man survives Ky.’s 1st recorded bear attack

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100629/ap_on_re_us/us_bear_attack

    • jon Says:

      “This was a private incident between me and a bear,” he said.
      “I was chomped on by a bear, and he was a bad bear, but that doesn’t speak of all bears.”

      Now that “bad” bear just received a death sentence.

    • jon Says:

      Comment from another person.

      Nicholas C 10 minutes ago Report Abuse
      “Bad Bear”!? “Good Bear”!? What in the world is he talking about. My vocation isn’t animal rights activism, and I really don’t mind the state of Kentucky killing bears that attack people. But that bear’s morality is not like a human’s in that it does things out of malice etc.If it’s hungry enough, it’ll eat humans like it would salmon or anything else out there. They’re wild animals, not tamed pets…

    • Angela Says:

      “Scott said he yelled and dropped his belt bag, hoping to distract the animal. The bear just sniffed the bag and continued approaching Scott, who grabbed a rotted branch and hit the bear. But the animal kept coming.”

      Carrying a peanut butter sandwich in your pack may be a good idea in black bear country.

    • Save bears Says:

      Angela,

      The problem with that is, then the bear gets a human food reward…which leads to far worse problems, it only takes them getting a reward one time and then they will look to other humans it may encounter and eventually be destroyed because of it..

  104. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    The Serengeti Road to disaster
    Decades after famous Bernhard Grzimek (author of the book „Serengeti shall not die“ – and maker of the film with same title – the first German movie after WWII to receive an Oscar) fought for the survival of this great preserve, it is again in severe danger. Tanzania plans a highway in its northern part thus effectively cutting migration routes. Lots of truck traffic is expected so protection of the road by fences is feared.
    While no one argues that a road is badly needed, an alternative routing, circumnavigating to the south, would be possible, albeit longer and more costly.
    What is the price to preserve a UNESCO World Heritage site? Sure there is a lot of bribing and corruption involved.
    http://www.savetheserengeti.org/issues/stop-the-serengeti-highway/

    • Robert Hoskins Says:

      Peter

      I read Grzimek’s book before I went to Africa in1974. Threats to the Serengeti and all of East Africa have been going on a long time. Development pressures were intense even then, although the financial means to develop were meager.

      When I was in Tanzania in late 1974 the Maoist Chinese were there building the Tanzam Railway to give Zambia an alternate railroad to the one going through Rhodesia and South Africa. While the Tanzam Railway didn’t affect the Serengeti, the growing commercialization of what we now call “ecotourism” between Kilimanjaro and the Serengeti was just beginning.

      We drove through the Serengeti and camped out. Very exciting when part of the trip is keeping the fires going at night to keep the lions out of camp. That’s Africa. Now the roads are paved and you are required to stay in expensive upscale hostels; virtually cut off from the land and the animals.

      In short, the Serengeti has been facing a number of development pressures for a very long time that affect the old migrations, chopping away at the land and the animals. Death by a thousand cuts.

      We are seeing the same type of problem in Botswana, as the Botswanan government defies Supreme Court decisions and is herding the San (Bushmen) into tiny reserves to open up both ecotourism and diamond mining.

      All of Africa is dying.

      RH

  105. jon Says:

    I don’t like to give Toby any free publicity for his site, but check this out if you guys want.

    He has a destroyers of wildlife gallery of shame up.

    http://lobowatch.com/LOBO-WATCH-Home.html

    • Peter Kiermeir Says:

      Speaking about China. China bought 141 Rhinos in Africa.
      What is wrong with that? This are far too many to stock chinese zoos. It is suspected that they are bought for their horns that are used in traditional medicine. (Source is a print article in Africa Geographic Magazine, no link available)

    • william huard Says:

      PETER
      Can you give me miore information abbout the china-rhino purchase? What month was the story? recent?

    • william huard Says:

      There was a recent story on the wwf website about 2 chinese nationals that were caught dragging 2 tiger carcasses over the russian- chinese border. The chinese have no conception about conservation- it’s all about me- me what can these animals do for me- their culture will not be happy until all wild tigers will be gone.

    • Peter Kiermeir Says:

      William,
      It was in the May 2010 issue of Africa Geographic Magazine. They do not have it in the online summary of the mag but they very reliably send back issues all around the globe.
      The link to their homepage is http://www.africageographic.com/
      I did not find other traces of this specific story on the www but google reveals a lot of links to other Rhino trading articles to China. Seems China is obviously also maintaining Rhino farms!
      http://www.rhinoconservation.org/2010/03/07/rhino-farms-in-china-stimulating-illegal-trade-driving-rhinos-closer-to-extinction/

    • william huard Says:

      Thank you peter for the info. China is so dispicable. They have their self centered interests which include ingestion of putrid bear bile for their own superstitious cultural belief in cures. I wish someone would call them on these disgusting exploitations of our most treasured animals like tigers and rhinos.!

  106. Save bears Says:

    Wow, is all I can say!

    http://www.topix.com/city/oysterville-wa

    • Angela Says:

      Sad.

      “…and when a wildlife official arrived, one of the bears crawled in the cab of his pickup truck.”
      ??

  107. Hilljack Says:

    Another story about the public feeding bears and causing huge problems. This time 5 bears are killed and 5 relocated because someone wants to feed them dog food. A similar story in Oregon happened last year but was 3 fold worse.
    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/29/1250551/wash-officials-euthanize-5-black.html?storylink=mirelated

    • WM Says:

      These people should be prosecuted for “harassment of wildlife” and all costs of responding to incidents caused by them, including cost of investigation, reasonable value of the killed bears, disposal of their remains, and relocation costs of the others should be be part of a state claim for damages. If they can afford $4,000 annual cost for dog food they should be able to pay for that.

    • Linda Hunter Says:

      I think the worst thing about this is the ingestion of processed dog food by bears. . it can’t be good for them. The neighbors in at least one case of bear feeding it turns out were not in danger as the bears just dispersed and no one sees them again. Of course in Washington and Oregon if someone sees a bear near their house they might have a heart attack so these bears are definitely dangerous to the health of neighbors in that way anyway.

    • jon Says:

      It is stupid people like that who should be euthanized. Do these idiots know that they are sentencing the bears to death by feeding them?

    • Save bears Says:

      Hijack,

      that is what I posted about last night, when I said, “Wow is all I can say”

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Many times they don’t Which is why it continues to happen…I can’t agree with saying the humans should be euthanized, your showing your true colors Jon! Advocating humans be killed in favor of wildlife is going quite a ways! I do agree, that they should be fined strongly and possibly serve time in the county jail, or spend time doing community service.

  108. Salle Says:

    Bear killed for frequenting campground

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_1e6a2b10-84c7-11df-ae3a-001cc4c03286.html

    apparently encouraging campers to keep a clean camp site isn’t enough, but it’s okay to just kill the bear and let the subject fade away until the next bear gets killed, the never ending convenience of convenience.

  109. JEFF E Says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009501-503544.html

    Another story we will not see covered in local/regional media

    • Salle Says:

      “The trapping is part of the state’s contribution to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team efforts, and is required under the Endangered Species Act to study grizzly bear distribution in the region.”

      Perhaps it’s time to review that policy since IDF&G have such a lousy track record managing wildlife.

    • Save bears Says:

      Awe…

      The joy, as I said a couple of weeks ago, the endangered species act, requires and promotes this type of stuff, but nobody wanted to admitted it!

    • pointswest Says:

      I think these types of studies need to be done. They need to know the health of the bears.

      I am not naive as to how the government works. I worked for the Targhee National Forest for two summer in my college years. Since funding was based on how much money was spent the previous year, we were encouraged to waste money. Three people would be sent, for the day, to do a job that one person could do in an hour. One thinning crew would not get out of their truck to work until “Love is Like Oxygen” played on the radio. They would wait for three hours if they needed to.

      No doubt in my mind that the endangered species act is used by some to spend taxpayer money and create work that is not really needed, but I think these studies of grizzlies need to be done. We need to know if efforts and sacrafices are even working.

  110. Ralph Maughan Says:

    I got a news release on this from Greg Losinski at Idaho Fish and Game. I neglected to post it.

    I think they are warning the public to such a degree because they are being very careful after the captured and released grizzly bear killed the botanist in Wyoming near Kitty Creek.

    • pointswest Says:

      The implication of these news stories is that the researchers knew Evert was killed earlier than they reported. That is, they may have seen the grizzly kill Evert shortly after the bear recovered consciousness.

      Even if this is true, what would be the motive for the researchers evading the truth…that they feared repercussions due to their failure to warn Evert? It seems to me that if there could be causation shown due to a failure to warn, it would make no difference of when the bear attacked or whether or not the researchers saw the attack.

      In any incident like this were emotions run high, you get dozens of inconsistencies in people’s stories…especially times. You would think everyone would look at their watch and remember exactly what time something happened, but they don’t. When you are talking about the death of another human being, they get emotional and completely forget time…evil humans!

      I think it is possible that the researches may have know about Evert’s death before they spoke to his wife, but there are many explanations for them not telling her. For example, they may have known of the death but were not sure it was Evert and did not want to scare his wife unless they were sure. Maybe they asked here what he was wearing so they could confirm that it was him.

      In any case, I do not see a criminal motive by the researchers for falsifying information about the attack. What did they have to lose or gain?

    • jon Says:

      People are playing the blame game, but if you want to really get down to it and place blame where it belongs, look no further than the hiker that got mauled. No grizzly bear researcher forced the hiker to do what he did. You cannot stop people from their own stupid actions. The bear is not at fault nor are the researchers. The hiker did what he wanted to do and his actions got himself killed. People’s own stupidity is what gets them killed.

    • jon Says:

      Evert’s friend Chuck Neal, a wildlife ecologist and author of Grizzlies in the Mist, said Evert contacted him before the incident to ask about the grizzly bear capture and the closure associated with it.

      “He knew the [closure] sign was there,” Neal said. “He asked me what I thought about it. I said, ‘just don’t go anywhere near it.’”

      Despite the warnings, Neal said Evert apparently took a circular route up a ridge to the east of his cabin, walked south along that ridge and came down into the drainage.

      “What he’s doing is walking toward the trap site,” Neal said. “He knew it; why he did it, nobody can fully explain.”

      Perhaps if some common sense was used, Mr. Evert would still be here today.

    • pointswest Says:

      I have friends that drive drunk too. They know the dangers. That does not mean, however, that I wished them dead or that they should die.

  111. jon Says:

    I want to say a happy 4th of july to Ralph, sb, and everyone else on here!

    • pointswest Says:

      Very gracious of you jon. You must be feeling pretty good to wish other human being well.

      I wonder how the friends and family of Mr. Erwin Frank Evert are doing this Forth of July.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Thank you, jon; and happy 4th to all of you.

      I stay home on the 4th of July because I can head out to the hills any other day of the week or time of the year.

    • Save bears Says:

      Thank you Jon…It has been an awesome day, I have received several calls from guys I served with in the gulf today, and it has been great to hear from them and to know, they are doing well.

      I hope you have a great 4th as well and remember the reason, behind this day, that started this great nation..

  112. Robert Hoskins Says:

    Hey guys. Lay off the victim in the Kitty Creek bear death. The whole story has not been told yet, certainly not in the newspapers. As I’ve been digging into this I think there is reason to believe that the warning signs were not in place when Frank Evert started his fatal hike.

    RH

  113. vickif Says:

    I see some things are still the same around here:) I wish each of you a happy and safe Independence Day.

    On the grizzly issue, each and every human who steps outside is at risk. Buses, serial killers, falling snags, can all be fatal. Yet, we cross streets, we go to the mall, we hike, we hunt, we fish, etc. There is risk in anything and everything. We choose to what degree we risk our own safety.
    I am saddened that any human is ever killed by an animal. I am sad for the person who passes, their loved-ones….and for the ripple effect that this type of happening has on the handling and perception of wildlife, particullarly predators.

    In no way does this define, nor predict grizzly behavior. Should the incident be scrutinized, and the data be used as a fragment of a model? No, not in my opinion. Anyone with a clue should know that the only thing truly predictable about wildlife, is that it is NEVER truly predictable.
    This man, may or may not have, made an informed decision on the day of his death. But I highly doubt he entered into his day without any prior knowledge that being in the wild comes with it’s hazards.
    It is truly sad that he died. But aside from the impact the way he died will have on bears, it is no sadder than if he had died by falling off a ledge. A sudden death is a horrible thing, no matter the cause. But dead, is dead. And his family will grieve him regardless of how he died.
    My heart and prayers are with them, and no argument here would provide them a different out-come. The best thing that could come of this is, people excercise more precaution when hiking in grizzly habitat.

  114. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    To the admin:
    There seems to be a convenient lull at the moment to start a clean edition for July. With 400 something postings this edition has reached some size and lifecycle. What a success!

  115. Ralph Maughan Says:

    OK,

    The “favorite news” has been updated to a clean slate.

  116. pointswest Says:

    A collection of buffalo, elk, deer, mountain sheep and wolf skulls and bones near Fort Sanders (Laramie, WY) 1870.

    This William Henry Jackson Photo gives us some idea of the wildlife that existed on the Great Plains at one time. Laramie, was a railroad town and by 1870, you can bet the wildlife anywhere nearby had nearly disapeared. These anaimals are probably just a few remants of what once existed there.

    Laramie is well onto the plains. The nearest mountains are about 35 miles to the west but it is all plains to the north, east, and south. You can see two or three wolf skulls along with bison, elk, deer, and bighorn sheep.

    Not all the wolves on the plains would have been buffalo hunters.

    This is proof to me that subspeciation for any of these animals would be nearly impossible north and south, from Alberta to New Mexico, on the high plains where they could easily roam seveal hundred miles in a single season.

    • WM Says:

      PW,

      ++This is proof to me that subspeciation for any of these animals would be nearly impossible north and south, from Alberta to New Mexico, on the high plains where they could easily roam seveal hundred miles in a single season.++

      The extent of wolf subspecies has been under constant formal debate for decades, and the field of conservation genetics has had a field day trying to decide exactly how many there are continually revising downward, in large part because wolves do have large ranges. It is recognized that there was interbreeding at the historically wide fringes of the core areas of the recognized subspecies.

      The document below (2010) is a current assessment of the Mexican Wolf, and at pp. 32 begins a great discussion of this complex subject, which references other sources/studies for even more detail.

      Thanks to Maska for leading me to it.

      http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/Mexican_Wolf_Conservation_Assessment.pdf

      I was half way serious when I suggested that the NRM states would have an easier time delisting theirs if wolves were present in more states, because of the constant overriding reference to “signficant portion of their range” that some advocates make. ID has in fact offered some of its “excess” Gray wolves to every state in the union, and had no takers.

      Whenever Gray wolves make their way south to CO and UT their numbers will undoubtedly be far greater than the Mexican wolves (100 down to 42 in the wild now, with a few in breeding programs across the US and a few in Mexico), just because of the frailty gene pool and few numbers of the remaining subspecies.

      While it makes sense to leave the heavy lifting to the geneticists who can tell the real story, it certainly seems in my practial mind that Gray wolves will likley be dominant in the end, if and when they move south to repopulate southern regions.

      As to the possible eventual integration of Gray and the Eastern Timber wolves of the Great Lakes areas, who knows what will happen. In either case how will the conservation geneticists/biologists classify these wide fringe wolf populations say thirty to fifty years from now?

    • pointswest Says:

      I lived in New Mexico for several years and graduated, finally, from the University of New Mexico (whose mascott is The Lobos). The Lobo (Mexican Wolf) recovery was big news and some of the captive breeding was done at the Albuquerque Zoo where I saw the captivie breeding pen on a regular basis. I also camped out and hunted in New Mexico quite a bit. I know the geography pretty well.

      I can understand the geographic barrier for the Mexican Wolf subspecies. It begins in the hot/dry deserts east of the Sierra Nevada (i.e. Death Valley) runs over to Las Vegas and then runs along the Grand Canyon. While I’m sure animals could cross the Grand Canyon, it would be a long journey and any animal would also have to swim the the Colorado River once they made it to the bottom of the canyon. From the Grand Canyon, the barrier runs southeast into New Mexico. One you get below about 4000 feet in centeral Arizona or West-Central New Mexico, you are in some very sparse desert and this desert is large and would also be a barrier. The Rio Grand Valley is reletivly low elevation and, except for the riparian area along the river, is hot and dry desert.

      The Mexican Wolf recovery area is a high mountainous area. Some is known as the Gila with peaks above 10,000 feet. Some is the Blue Range with peaks above 10,000 feet, and some is the Mogion Rim with peaks over 11,000 feet and mesas over 7,000 that sweep across Airzona almost to the Grand Canyon. I have hunted, fished and camped these areas many times.

      There is going to be a problem. With cattle ranching, the genetic barrier is not as good as it once was because of the thousands of stock tanks fed by deep wells and windmills. They are all over Arizona and New Mexico. The stock tanks have greatly increased the range for deer and elk…and for sheep and cattle all of which will support wolves. The mid elevation country along the New Mexico/Aizona border today supports good numbers of deer and elk (and livestock) where there were probably very few 300 years ago. Wolves from Colorado will easily migrate south into the Gila where as before it was very unlikely.

      It will also be much easier for them to migrate from the high plains to the east into the Gila as well because of stock tanks. They could live on sheep, cows, deer, elk, antelope, horses, chickes, dogs, and cats on there way and cross central New Mexico and the Rio Grande Valley into the Gilla.

      If they want to preserve the subspecies, there will need to be a no wolf zone. But how will they pull that off? It will only take one wandering male to start poluting the gene pool. In a few centuries, the subspecies will be gone.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: