Have you come across any interesting Wildlife News? March 15, 2011

Note that this replaces the 25th edition. That edition will now move slowly into the depths of the blog.

Sticky Geranium and a Crab Spider © Ken Cole

Sticky Geranium and a Crab Spider © 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.

362 Responses to “Have you come across any interesting Wildlife News? March 15, 2011”

  1. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    Yes, how about a decent spring hunt after a long and boring winter? http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_2a23d440-4f62-11e0-a343-001cc4c03286.html

  2. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/improvement+grizzly+bear+mortality+Alberta+Report/4445624/story.html
    Don´t be mislead by the tags in that URL, it is -of course- +no+ improvement!

  3. Salle Says:

    Are Regulators Doing Enough to Prevent Bee Die-Offs?
    A veteran Colorado beekeeper is challenging the Environmental Protection Agency to remove a widely used pesticide from the market until there’s proof it isn’t contributing to bee die-offs. Is he jumping to conclusions or catching the EPA using flawed science?

    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/are_regulators_doing_enough_to_prevent_bee_die_offs/C619/L619/

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Salle, others –
      This is a good opportunity to clarify a couple of misconceptions about the Motor Vehicle Rule (MVR): the Statesman article (originally a Spokesman Review report) repeats a common misunderstanding about the MVR – that it restricts OHV use. The MVR only regulates HUNTING with the aid of a OHV, on legal trails. It regulates the act of hunting, not OHV use. It does nothing to regulate where or when the public can recreate with OHVs. Recent surveys and public comment demonstrate that the hunting public strongly supports the MVR. Like many contemporary natural resource management issues, this is a contentious issue that will require hard work by all stakeholders, agencies and elected leaders.

      • JEFF E Says:

        Mark,
        could you clarify something for me here. If I am in a MVR area hunting and successful what is the law relating to using an ORV for recovery? can i go cross country?

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

        JEFF E –
        If you are on Forest Service ground, you would be guided by FS travel regulations and the IDFG Motor Vehicle Rule (only if it applies to the big game management unit you killed your animal in). The MVR only applies to hunting with OHVs on trails – not full sized vehicle roads. Retrieval of game is not affected by the MVR. Otherwise, you would be restricted by the FS travel regulations which do not allow for off-road/trail travel under any circumstances. Short answer, if it’s legal to use a OHV on trails near your kill, you could legally use a OHV to pack out your animal, once you get it to the trail.

      • JEFF E Says:

        thanks Mark

  4. Salle Says:

    Report: GOP lawmakers accept farm subsidies, reject other federal funds
    A new report calls some legislative Republicans hypocrites for taking tens of thousands of dollars in federal farm subsidies while voting to turn away federal funds for other services and programs.

    http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110315/NEWS01/103150325/1002/news01/Report-GOP-lawmakers-accept-farm-subsidies-reject-other-federal-funds

    • Nancy Says:

      +Tutvedt said payments to farmers in years of drought, crop damage or for conservation purposes are the only way to ensure cheap food prices for the nation+

      Just 4% of the population in Montana are involved in farming & ranching. How much of that farming is directly related to raising crops for livestock?

      http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=30000

    • Nancy Says:

      Salle – if you have a chance check out the top recipents for 2009 (and the profiles – ownership – location, etc. – to left of each “ranch or farm when you click on them) especially under Colony:
      http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=30000

      Its mind boggling when you see just how much has been collected in subsidies over the last 10 years………..Would appear the Hofers, Wipfs and Waldners are doing quite well in the handout dept. in many parts of the state.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      This is how the term “welfare rancher” got invented. About 20 years ago it finally became so obvious that many of the biggest loud mouths about the unemployed, the old, and sick were in fact massive freeloaders of agricultural subsidies that folks started to point to the obvious and use that name which they hate because it so much goes against their self image.

  5. JimT Says:

    http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=7095

    USFWS dropped its appeal of a decision that said it ignored science when it refused Wyoming’s wolf management plan, and are in “negotiations” with state officials.

    Bad news, folks. Means Salazar has signaled surrender on wolves, and now Tester has Wyoming as an ally in the fight to gut the ESA via the wolf issue.

    USFWS has no spine, and no commitment to its core mission. No difference I can see between Republican and Democratic White Houses in basic attitudes.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      The agency Monday withdrew its appeal of the court decision. U.S. District Court Judge Alan Johnson in Cheyenne last year said the Fish and Wildlife Service ignored science when it rejected Wyoming’s plan.

      Splitting hairs, judge ruled they ignored science, USFWS did not say they ignored science.

      • jon Says:

        Immer, it’s funny because I have seen Wyoming numerous times claim their shoot on sight plan in most of the state is based on science, but is it really or are they just making stuff up because they want to get rid of wolves any way they can? We all know in Wyoming, politics always rule over science. what if all of the wolves in Wyoming wander into the areas where they can be shot on sight? I know wolves don’t tolerate other packs in their territory, but who is to say this will never happen? This is an extermination plan and Wyoming is hiding behind ” this plan is based on science when it’s really not” card. this is clearly about politics and catering to the hunters and the welfare ranchers.

      • jon Says:

        And you know the hunters and the ranchers have their guns ready. As soon as they ok Wyoming to shoot wolves on sight, you can bet hunters will be out there asap looking to find wolves and kill them. You’d think Wyoming would learn from its past mistakes, but no, you got the same type of people there.

  6. Woody Says:

    I don’t recall seeing this mentioned before but there is an article by George Wuerthner at New West, with some execellent comments following, regarding the bison-brucellosis situation.
    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/bison_slaughter_smokescreen_for_livestock_industry/C564/L564/#comments

  7. JB Says:

    Majority leader questions funding for science
    http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/review.htm

  8. Phil Says:

    “Cows and calves drive the system, Hayden added. IDFG uses a term called calf recruitment, essentially a combination of birth and survival rates. A strong calf recruitment ratio, one that doesn’t worry biologists, is 30 calves for every 100 cows.” What would be the difference between a “calf recruitment” and a “fitness”?

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Phil –
      Can you be a little more specific? Your question, as written, isn’t clear. The ecological concept of fitness, applied to wildlife populations, generally describes how robust a population is, lending to it’s likelihood to persist given the variety of ecological challenges that population faces. There is no such thing as “a fitness”. Likewise, there’s no such thing as “a calf recruitment”. Calf recruitment is a basic population dynamics term that describes the rate of survival of – in this case elk calves – to a given age or stage of the life cycle of the elk population. In the convention used by Jim Hayden (wildlife manager), the term means how many calves survive until they become sexually mature, reproduce and contribute to elk producton.
      Recruitment in fisheries management usually means survival to a size in the fish population that is efficiently captured by the fishing gear used for that fishery. Similarly, elk recuruitment could mean survival of elk calves until they are selected for by hunters – as mature cows or bulls.

      • WM Says:

        It appears Phil is commenting outside his pay grade once again. I knew it wouldn’t last long.

    • jon Says:

      I agree 100% Tim. I’ve seen that yesterday and it’s truly heartbreaking and amazing at the same time. Humans can learn a thing or two from dogs like that.

    • timz Says:

      this is why I like dogs better than most people

      • jon Says:

        I’m with you 100% Tim.

      • jon Says:

        Timz, are you familiar with Idaho’s wolf bill #274? Do you know if there is anything going on with this bill?

      • timz Says:

        Yes, but I’ve heard nothing about it lately, the legislature here is too busy cutting education and medicaid, passing laws to allow students to carry guns on campus and other important crap like that. Wolves haven’t been brought up in the last few weeks, at least not that I know of.

      • timz Says:

        Maybe It’s because wolves are on strike here in Idaho. On the way home tonight from work I saw three seperate herds of elk and pulled over and watched two beautiful bulls grazing on a hillside for a while. Nary a wolf in site.

  9. jon Says:

    Mountain cats, chipmunks … and wolves? Oh, my!

    http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/03/15/5380106.htm

  10. timz Says:

    Not wildlife related but, my God what are we coming to as a country?
    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/03/17/1570403/couple-charged-with-threatening.html

    • Salle Says:

      I think it’s that self-righteous temper-tantrum mentality that has become such a danger to the rights of everyone… There are too many religious zealots ~ in this case perhaps it’s the religion of the gun ~ in this country and something needs to happen to put them into a state of reality as life is in the world not their interpretation of some old, moldy text/ideals that they believe in ~ and insist that everyone else live according to their interpretations.

      • Salle Says:

        and insist that everyone else live according to their interpretations.

        Maybe more clearly: and insist that everyone else live according to those interpretations.

      • jon Says:

        These religious right wing extremist are some of the most dangerous and insane people we have in this country. Call them the christian equivalent of muslim extremists who use their religion as a weapon.

    • WM Says:

      Interesting development. The Earthjustice lawyers want out, because different interests of their respective clients presents ethic issues. Do recall it was these same lawyers who came up with and advocated the idea to push the technical legal argument on breaking up the DPS to the front of their complaint. It has nothing to do with the science of recovery and delisting.

      The ruling on the DPS issue, was the reason for the huge number of legislative proposals in Congress proposing changes to the ESA, and now is the cause for a break-up of the plaintiff group, and maybe a negotiated solution.

      I cautioned even back before Judge Molloy ruled, “to be careful what you wish for” in the way of a ruling on this technical point. It has played out so far, exactly as I predicted. Yeah, this is one of those I told you so moments.

      The coming question, is what does the future hold for a settlement that is not “global” in nature. If the more strident of these wolf groups wants to go forward, do they run the risk of ultimately having fewer protections for wolves, and potentially changing the ESA forever?

      Certainly something to think about.

  11. Leslie Says:

    Game & Fish to create a board to study the Sunlight/Crandall herd (migratory Cody here).

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_54725a5b-a80d-5e42-8848-3eda67ef8451.html

    In this article Resnick says “it appears that elk numbers in portions of the Cody unit have fallen back levels not seen since the Yellowstone fires in the 1980s.”

    Well, yes of course, because the ’88 fires created fantastic forage and a spike in elk numbers. Many of these outfitters only arrived here 20 or less years ago, so their memory is of that spike.

    Also, Arthur Middletons study finished last year said the green-up period was shorter, the forage poorer, and the Lamar now has more large predators who take the young calves. These elk calf in the Lamar. I am unclear what a new board made up of mostly hunters and outfitters is going to do, besides rant on wolves which is the unsophisticated mind’s fallback when a brain doesn’t want to think about complicated issues.

    I recommend doing control burns and getting the cattle off the public lands here.

    • Cody Coyote Says:

      I posted along comment to this article at the Gazette about the complicity and duplicity of the Absaroka Elk Ecology Staudy and its funders ( entirely hunters and their organizations and lobbyists; no genuine wildlife conservationiss or —gasp!—environmentalists who might actually want to inject some ecology.

      Leslie covers it nicely in fewer word here.

      Even fewer yet: Putting the professional hunters and lobbyists at the table as an advisory group for elk management makes putting a fox in charge of the henhouse seem like trailer park Day Care.

      Wyoming Game & Fish has lost most all of its credibility with me when it comes to managing game as wildlife instead of a Put and Take farm crop of ungulates for license revenues…

  12. Virginia Says:

    http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_b01fe45a-501e-11e0-ba1c-001cc4c03286.html

    The brilliant Park County Commissioners do not want climate change addressed in the new Shoshone National Forest plan because we had a pretty cold winter. Please read this article if you want to see what gross ignorance abides in our commissioners’ minds.

    • Leslie Says:

      Their comments are all about $$. Money, money and money. Of course, no one walks these days, so we need more campgrounds (they can’t even maintain the ones they have on the federal budget they have), and more motorized use. I suspect these commissioners never walk beyond the campgrounds, if they use them at all.

  13. jon Says:

    BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Wildlife advocates say they will file a settlement agreement with the U.S. government Friday in federal court that would take wolves off the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho.

    Kieran Suckling with the Center for Biological Diversity said the agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would keep the species listed as endangered in Oregon, Washington, Utah and Wyoming.

    Suckling says political pressure forced environmentalists into the settlement to avoid intervention from Congress that could have broadly undermined the Endangered Species Act.

    But a split among the plaintiffs in the case has left three groups opposed to the deal. Tom Woodbury with the Western Watersheds Project says his group thinks wolves still need federal protection.

    The settlement would need approval from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula.

    Got this from another site. No link, but I will look.

    • jon Says:

      “We need to start to build that second population, and this puts us on the road to get that done,” he said.

      I could not agree more.

  14. jon Says:

    Judge doesn’t dismiss poaching charge

    Trial rescheduled in felony case against anti-wolf activist

    http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005135820

  15. Daniel Berg Says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/anti-prairie-dog-explosive-rodenator_n_837490.html

    There are demonstrations of the “Rodenator” on you tube. I’m not posting the link because it would put up the whole video. It’s a redneck’s dream weapon.

    • Phil Says:

      Who cares if animals are caught on fire, right? As long as family members are not on fire, then people like these really don’t have a passion of life that does not pertain to themselves or loved ones.

      • WM Says:

        These devices have application in agriculture, private lawns, public parks, golf courses and anywhere else moles/gophers or other burrowing animals conflict with human activities.

        So, Phil, what is your solution to human – wildlife conflicts, wherever they might occur? You can’t just say do nothing, because taxpayers and agriculturalists won’t say no. Maybe your own family may say they don’t like gopher holes in the yard.

        Do you set the traps, poison, pour diesel fuel down a hole, sit by the hole with a pellet gun, or use the Rodenator and take care of business in as humane a way as possible?

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        WM,

        If you have a couple minutes, plug the word “rodenator” into youtube and watch the first video at the top of the list (Rodenator Pro, bunker buster). It’s an interesting marketing video given the potential backlash.

      • jon Says:

        They are lying as well. In that article, they said they don’t use them to kill animals. Do they expect anyone to believe that lie?

  16. Phil Says:

    WM: Setting them on fire from explosions is not a solution. No matter what conflicts arise from wildlife and humans, one group setting the other on fire is not a way to go about it. Bascally, what you are agreeing with is to kill the rival (conflicting group) because that is the best your intelligence can comprehend. As a human, the best solution is to kill what competes and conflicts with you, right?

  17. Phil Says:

    WM: “In as humane way as possible”? Blowing up a living creature and watching it agonize in fire is humane?

    • WM Says:

      Phil,

      The point is, what is your solution? All you have done to this point is criticize the solutions of others who have to deal with the problem.

      I gather this device gives a concussive shock that probably kills the animal instantly. Fire, if there is any is likely very brief, since there is no remaining oxygen in the tunnel. Certainly better than a dose of diesel oil, or one I forgot that was (is) used widely – cyanide bombs, that are ignited and stuck down a hole which is covered. The user then looks for smoke coming from the ground, indicating a connected passage, and closes that with dirt.

      • Phil Says:

        WM: I do not have a solution, but I do not solve problems by killing what I disagree with. All you have ever done (from what I have gathered of yourself) is come up with “killing” as a solution. You are this intelligent person, right? If “killing” is your best solution, then how can you satisfy that intelligence of being a modern (21st century) human?

      • WM Says:

        Phil,

        You don’t read or comprehend very well, for someone who aspires to be wildlife manager. To be a manager you need to be a problem solver.

        I have for two years or longer on this forum suggested translocation of wolves as a means of reducing density but increasing population to some agreed level within one or more geographic areas. This, of course, will still result in a lethal solution at some point because wolves will continue to procreate to reach equilibrium with their food source, which is compounded by hunter desires for harvestable ungulate populations and those evil ranchers wanting to protect their livestock.

        See, my problem with you is that you universally criticize anyone with a solution -whatever it is if it involves lethal control. Yet you offer no compelling effective non-lethal solutions to contemprary problems that involve humans and wildlife co-habiting (and humans maybe even creating food/habitat for wildlife it does not want but needs to control).

        Again, what is your solution to burrowing animals eating tree roots, vineyard grapes, destroying lawns, golf courses and playgrounds? Come on, let’s hear your cost-effective solutions.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        WM,

        Your arguments about the root eaters is fine, but come on, golf courses????

        Robin Williams take of the invention of golf! If you don’t like fowl language, do not open it.

      • WM Says:

        Immer,

        Ever see Caddy Shack with Bill Murray an early 1980’s classic? There is a very protracted and major sub-plot with Murray’s character, a compulsive/deranged (former Viet Nam vet) greenskeeper, trying to dispatch a gopher wreaking havoc on the course. He uses various means to get him. Very catch tune by Kenny Loggins to go with it….. and yep, and our animated gopher lives as only Hollywood make it happen.

        My view of golf? A nice walk spoiled.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        WM,
        Cadyshack is one of those laugh out loud movies. That short scene of flushing the gopher out reminded me how we used to catch 13-Lined ground squirrels. We would each bring a gallon mil bottle (glass) a long time ago, and insert the bottles into the two or three holes, and sooner or later the gs would shoot up one of those hole right into the bottle. We’d keep it a few days, and then let it go.

      • Moose Says:

        Used to catch ground squirrels with pickle jars and hoses at the city cemetery…also best place for collecting night crawlers..always ended up someone scaring someone else, and then everyone sprinting out.

  18. Phil Says:

    WM: Comprehending is not your strong hold either, is it? The topic is not about wolves, it is about Praire Dogs seen as rodents. Translocating wolves is a valid idea instead of hunting them. Going back to the settlement on an earlier thread, instead of settling to protect the low or non-existant wolves in Washington, Oregon, Utah and such, if worse came to worse, I would not have agreed with the settlement. To solve the “supposed” high population of wolves in Idaho and Montana, I would use a translocation method of certain packs or individual wolves to these other 4 states instead of settling with what they got. Wolves will not reach an equilibrum rate with their food sources. Do you know what equilibrum means? Do you even know the many diverse food sources wolves hav? So, basically you are saying that wolves population will eventually reach a level of their (many) food supplies, right?

    WM: Your solution does not justify any intelligence. I took a Intro to Africa class last year. I worked on two research papers in which one dealt with the 1994 Rwanda Genocides, and the other with King Leopold’s conquership of the Congo and the Congo people in the late 19th century to the early 20th century. In both cases, the method of killing was the only solution to get what one side wanted to further benefit their wants. And, in both cases the killings occured because there was no intelligence from the destructive side in finding another solution. The Tutsi people were not very well educated when they began conflicts with the Hutu people, so their only method was to try to kill them all. King Leopold was not a very intelligent king when instead of paying a small amount to the Congo people who were not working hard, he instead killed them which further dimished the amount of helpers to do his dirty work. These ways of killing wildlife are not intelligent ways of solving problems because more and more people are becoming aware of them, which in my opinion is tarnishing ranchers and hunters.

    • jon Says:

      I’ve seen youtube videos of hunters killing prairie dogs and laughing about it. There is something sick with these people if they get pleasure and laugh when they are killing prairie dogs.

    • jon Says:

      Phil, that is the typical mentality and attitude of a rural american that wears a cowboy hat. Kill kill kill, the first and only solution.

    • WM Says:

      Phil,

      Let’s get back to the reading and comprehension stuff for a moment. You, dear boy, broadened the topic with this statement:
      ++ All you have ever done (from what I have gathered of yourself) is come up with “killing” as a solution. ++

      I replied by responding that (as an example) I didn’t really want to kill wolves, and in the alternative thought translocation was a good idea, but it wouldn’t work forever. And then I challenged you to come up with non-lethal solutions for burrowing animals, again the topic of the thread.

      Then you come back with this assinine statement:

      ++Comprehending is not your strong hold either, is it? The topic is not about wolves, it is about Praire Dogs seen as rodents. ++

      And as for your other stuff, I just don’t know where to begin. I grow weary every time I attempt to communicate directly with you, suspecting my frustrations are shared with others on this forum. Good luck on your job search, is all I can say.

      • Phil Says:

        WM: I did not broaden the topic with my statement. The statement directly pointed to this example using many comments of yours, especially ones you posted on this topic.

        “I grow weary every time I attempt to communicate directly with you,…”, but you do not have a rebuttal to my solution. Why? Because it coincides intelligence with logcs? Because it proves that “killing” is the cheapest, weakest, easiest and a prehistoric method? “Suspecting my frustrations are shared with others on this forum.”? You mean Elk and SaveBears? How many times have you pointed that out, wm? Is that the best and only rebuttal you can come up with? Where is your solution to the problem that you targeted me on as to not having? Oh, ya; that’s right. Your mind (with that master’s degree of yours) came up with “killing”, right?

        By the way, my job search I am going through that you pointed out as critical has already given me a response via the Canine Field Specialist in Missoula, Montana.

      • WM Says:

        Phil,

        Since this forum is about education too, let’s just consider your rather cryptic “solution” comments for a moment. Most states have land grant universities, which according to their charters, are involved in agricultural research and getting that research out to farmers and ranchers through co-operative extension programs. Pest control of various types is an important area of research with clear objectives of reducing costs of food production while minimizing environmental damage or risks (so we don’t have a repeat of horrors like DDT).

        Market forces are in play which would suggest private industry would also look to alternative pest control solutions, whether it is the biochemistry folks or some small enterprising sort like the guy(s) who invented this Rodenator device. If there is a marketable product that solves a problem at low cost then in will probably sell. Can non-lethal solutions solve a problem in the long term and/or compete?

        And, of course, the government is also involved in this kind of research, and regulating the research and products brought to the marketplace, including the agency here everybody loves to hate, Wildlife Services (APHIS) in the US Department of Agriculture.

        There are lots of very bright young men and women out there wanting to make their mark in the world, and if there are reasonable solutions we can hope they are found. If you have a solution or a process that will encourage educational research, government or the private marketplace to find effective “non-lethal” solutions for animal and pest control, have at it sport.

      • WM Says:

        And when I say farmers and ranchers, that is not just the Rocky Mountains. That is the Heartland, the South and huge agricultural producing states like CA, TX and FLA, as well as many other productive areas of the US.

        And, by the way, those damn golf courses are everywhere, something like 60,000 of them across the world (don’t know how many in the US offhand), but nearly every one of them, I suspect, has burrowing animal problems begging for solutions.

  19. Phil Says:

    You want some kind of solution wm? Ok. If I were in the place of these ranchers and such, I would use my mind instead of a weopon to kill to solve the problem. How? Why not study and research what kind of material would affect these animals from damaging my crops? Technology has come up with bad tasting and smelling materials that keep domesticated dogs and cats out of flower gardens, right? Inventors have used their intelligence to come up with these solutions instead of killing the dogs and cats, so why can’t the ranchers work in the same way instead of showing their lack of intelligence and just “blowing” away the animals? Will the material that would keep the praire dogs and such away from the crops affect the crops? I don’t know, but if it does, then do not use it and go back to the drawing board. Look at DOF and their attempts to save wolves by working with farmers and others to save their livestock. They tried to use their intelligence to find solutions, while hunters and ranchers consistantly used the “kill” solution.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Phil get over it now. Every homeowners association in Bozeman eventually used the Rodenator, even my assistant who is not pro hunting and the president of her home owners association has called the Rodenator. There are just to many damn gophers in town.

  20. Phil Says:

    So, Elk, basically what you are saying is that people who live in your state cannot live out of the prehistoric times and use their intelligence to find other ways to solve problems? There are to many humans in town to, so why not use methods to kill some off, right? I dislike many hunters, but I do not go out shooting them like target practice. Can you imagine if everyone killed what they disliked? Would there still be life on this planet?

    • Elk275 Says:

      Phil

      ++I dislike many hunters++

      You do not like ANY hunters. Do you like fishermen/women? What is your feeling on fishing? We all know your feelings on hunting.

      • Phil Says:

        Elk: You are using your opinion. I have friends who hunt. I have, to some degree, commented on certain hunters with a respectful manner. I have no problem on fishing if it does not alter the supply to other species. My point with hunting is that it is not a “need” when you live in today’s day and age. It is nothing more then a “want”, and when people use it in excusable manners to get sympathy from others against species who “need” to hunt, then these are the hunters in which I dislike.

  21. Nancy Says:

    Phil – you have to realize, its incredibly hard to change the minds of people who’s Daddy and Granddaddy etc. influenced their lives.
    A few years ago a rancher almost punched me when I said I liked badgers. I could see it in his eyes………I mean what the hell, I didn’t know about the horse he had to put down because it broke a leg in a badger hole. But then again, have yet to see or hear about a lot of ranch horses (or wild horses for that matter) running around with broken legs.

    So I would imagine horses do just fine in badger country until someone throws a saddle on their back and bit in their mouth and demands their TOTAL attention (as in herding cattle) Attention they normally would dedicate towards keeping an eye out for badger holes.

    I have Richardson’s Ground Squirrels in my neck of the woods (similar to a prairie dog) They live underground for close to 8 months out of the year and then they spend 4 months gathering for that time, when spring rolls around.

    When the babies come out, its really entertaining to watch them! Also have the occasional badger taking up residence (and they really hate it when you catch them out and about and just want a picture!)

    I’m thinking and from what I’ve read, science backs me up – badgers, coyotes and foxes depend on and have kept these rodent populations to a reasonable level but unfortunately, here in cattle country, no one has made an attempt to understand that relationship – they’d rather just shoot em.

    Horse stepped in badger hole, shoot every badger you come across. Coyote grabs a calf or lamb, shoot every coyote you come across. And then of course there’s WS.

    Its very sad because wildlife was doing just fine in the ebb and flow, til we humans started pushing and shoving wildlife around to meet OUR needs.

  22. Phil Says:

    wm: I was waiting for that “cost efficient” reason to come up from you. What is more important, cost efficient or saving crops? Killing the “critters” has not worked has it? If you kill the critters, then more will move in and take their place, but if you build a one time defensive method, then it will not only save the crops for the current “critter” residence, but also any that move in throughout time.

    “Since this forum is about education too, let’s just consider your rather cryptic “solution” comments for a moment. Most states have land grant universities, which according to their charters, are involved in agricultural research and getting that research out to farmers and ranchers through co-operative extension programs. Pest control of various types is an important area of research with clear objectives of reducing costs of food production while minimizing environmental damage or risks (so we don’t have a repeat of horrors like DDT).” Again; this “pest control” has not solved much, has it? Yes, the research is there on a effecient budget way to save crops and such, but have there been more praire dogs that have moved in? Does the “rodenator” do any form of damage to the soil where crops are being planted? Again: If you use proper measures in protecting your crops, then it will not only work in the short-term basis, but it will work in the long-term which would not only save the lives of the “critters”, but also save the loss of economic stature of the farmers.

  23. jon Says:

    Some crazy woman trying to go after some of the people on this board. Be aware of some of these people.

    http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2011/03/16/yellowstone-is-dead-now-available-on-dvd/comment-page-1/#comment-249904

  24. jon Says:

    There are other groups coming out showing their support to keep wolves relisted.

    http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6675&news_iv_ctrl=1194

    I’m not shocked by defenders. Seems like they have been a letdown in recent times.

  25. Salle Says:

    Conservationists pan MEPA proposals
    Senate Republicans are moving forward with their plan to tilt the state’s main environmental law in favor of industry, despite objections from Democrats that the plan undermines key protections for clean air and water.

    http://helenair.com/news/article_9858b9c0-512a-11e0-bd32-001cc4c03286.html

  26. Salle Says:

    U.S. Forest Service to detail draft planning rule at Missoula meeting

    The proposed rule provides a collaborative and science-based framework for creating land management plans that would support ecological sustainability and contribute to rural job opportunities. Forest Service land management plans guide management activities on the 155 national forests and 20 grasslands in the national forest system.

    The forum will not be a platform to accept public comment, rather an opportunity for people to ask questions to better inform the formal comments submit. The comment period closes May 16.

    Full text of the proposed rule, instructions to provide comment, the planning rule blog and more can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.

    http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_39157620-5106-11e0-bf5c-001cc4c002e0.html

  27. Salle Says:

    Yellowstone bison get more room to roam in Montana

    Montana officials are pushing ahead with a plan to let Yellowstone National Park bison roam more freely within a sprawling river basin formerly off limits to the disease-carrying animals because of livestock industry concerns.

    The move is aimed at ending a dispute on Yellowstone bison that has resulted in almost 4,000 of the animals being hauled to slaughter since 2000. It will allow at least some of the animals to carry out their natural migration to lower elevations outside the park during harsh winters.

    But a Republican lawmaker said Thursday that the Schweitzer administration was letting “a creeping cancer” into Montana by opening new areas to bison.

    “You can’t have free roaming buffalo in a society like we have today, it doesn’t work,” said Sen. John Brenden, a Republican from Scobey, who has a measure pending in the Montana Legislature to largely prohibit free-ranging bison across the state

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_6355d192-50c4-11e0-8884-001cc4c002e0.html

  28. Salle Says:

    In holding pens, room is running out for Yellowstone bison

    Here, the bison live in close quarters with the rest of their herd and are fed daily with about 10 tons of local grass hay. But as more bison leave the park, the pastures are getting full, and officials are already feeling pressure to figure out what to do next.

    http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_ad091486-5112-11e0-9db7-001cc4c002e0.html

  29. I love wolves and elk Says:

    Here is an interesting article about geology and earthquake faults. it mentions at the end of the article that the Island of Japan is now 8 feet closer to the United States than it was before their quake.

    This reminds me of the movement in the Borah Range and the adjacent valley after the 1983 quake.

    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre72f87d-us-earthquakes-quartz/

  30. jon Says:

    You should post this Ralph.

    Don Peay and utah hunters mad

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51462286-76/wolf-utah-wildlife-wolves.html.csp

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      I got some email forwarded to me from a Wyoming anti-wolf crew. They think something is afoot too.

      And they read this blog. Worry, you guys😉

    • jon Says:

      I know what Don Peaybrain is trying to pull. I don’t believe there are many wolves in Utah at all. Peaybrain wants the states to manage wolves, so that way any wolf that comes into Utah can be shot and killed. This is the problem. We have hunters and hunting groups who feel that wildlife only belongs to them and only them should have a say on how to manage it. This is what the problem is.

      • jon Says:

        And states should not cater to just hunting groups and what they want. I’m positive that the non-hunters outnumber the hunters in most states if not all. You have these groups of people who want to turn their state into a game farm. Wolves should have a right to exist.

  31. jon Says:

    NRA, Safari Club criticize Utah hunting groups over alleged misrepresentation

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/51462066-117/release-groups-forever-game.html.csp

    • timz Says:

      “Big Game Forever is a spinoff of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, with supporters such as retired baseball star Wade Boggs and comedian Jeff Foxworthy, that is raising funds to lobby for the bill to delist the wolves”

      As Jeff Foxworthy himself might say, you may be a redneck if you belong to this group.

      • william huard Says:

        They should rename themselves “Hillbillies for trophies”

      • jon Says:

        I used to be a Wade Boggs fan back in the day. Not anymore. Karl Malone, former utah jazz basketball player is also good friends with Peaybrain.

  32. Phil Says:

    william: Jeff Foxworthy a hillbilly? LOL

    • Salle Says:

      You might find that funny but if you listen to his jokes you might notice that he actually has a very close affinity with the hillbilly lifestyle.

      In addition, here’s a joke that he was telling just before the Atlanta Olympics: “…man, you know all that fancy celebrating that’s goin’ on before the games even start are gonna be a challenge… I mean, they’re gonna let 2000 (or however many there were) white doves loose at the beginning of the opening ceremony, can you imagine? Lord, you KNOW we’re gonna mess THAT up… ’cause there’s gonna be a thousand hunters standing there in the parking lot firing away!”

      Might have been a joke but the thing that made his jokes funny is that they were usually true. Most of the non-rural Americans didn’t know much about the redneck lifestyle, they were too distracted… What the redneck society doesn’t like about outsiders is that they have a sense of what is truly appropriate and what is not, seems like knowing the difference is a strike against you there. Ignorance is bliss?

      • jon Says:

        Salle, I imagine you must come into contact with a lot of predator hating cowboys. How do you deal with these people and what is your reaction when the subject turns to wolves and they go on about how bad wolves are and how they are eating all of the elk and how they are canadian and all of this other nonsense. it’s either their way or the highway. These people do not like outsiders or transplants from other places that move into their state. The only way you can be a true Montanan to those cowboys is if your family has lived there for generations and if you are on board with wiping out wolves.

      • Salle Says:

        Amazingly they are not all like that in my area but there’s enough of them to constantly remind me of the issues pro and con. The ones that are avid wolf-haters, especially when they find out that I don’t agree with them, usually spew their disgust and wait for me to get all excited, which doesn’t happen. I usually listen and then find some point that really clicks with them and then respond with facts they can look up or ask them to prove to me, not just hearsay, that what they say is true or real. It often defuses the argument or they just go off and discontinue the conversation, which is just fine with me. It was situations of that nature that led me to come up with my little quip that follows those who can’t take the my inability to acquiesce: You can lead a mind to knowledge but you can’t make it think.

        However, I do listen to what they have to say and if they have info that is verifiable, I’ll look into it and make the effort, if it’s well after the conversation has ended, to find them ~ locals that is ~ and revisit the conversation and discuss what I found out with them, they really like that part even if we end up not agreeing, we find that we can agree to disagree. That usually works well, especially in a bar where most social interaction takes place around here.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        LOL. Generalize much?

      • Salle Says:

        The only way you can be a true Montanan to those cowboys is if your family has lived there for generations and if you are on board with wiping out wolves.

        A lot of my former life was involved with work that they can relate to and admire which gives me some personal/political capital with them, they even forgive me for having a college education, some actually like that I do, some of them are educated, much of what they fell and think about wildlife has to do with what they believe and the family cultural norms… those are hard things to change for a lot of folks… if you can’t get them to think, even after the conversation is over, then you probably have wasted your breath. And then there are some whom I have concluded are probably a waste of good air that could be put to better use by endangered species. I’m sure this is true of at least half of the politicians in our midst.

  33. Phil Says:

    jon: Not just them, but Bret Favre, Jarret Allen, Roy Oswalt, all these players make or made millins and still hunt. Why? Only the individuals who rely 100% on hunting for survival should be allowed to hunt, and this should even be in a restricted way.

    • Elk275 Says:

      If the law allows hunting then they are going hunting. No body cares what Phil says, I don’t.

      • Phil Says:

        It doesn’t matter if you care what I say or not, Elk. My career and goal is not to persuade people to do what I want, it is to research and educate through the research. But, more and more people are not caring what hunters want as well. It goes both ways.

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++But, more and more people are not caring what hunters want as well. It goes both ways.++

        Those people have no political power in the western states and currently there are unable to stop hunting in states such as Mass. where it might be politically feasible.

      • william huard Says:

        ELK 275-
        Who wants to ban hunting? We don’t want pigeons left alive in target practice fields. We don’t want White Trailer Trash outfitters killing cougars with dogs. We don’t want bears shot in their dens. We don’t want wolves killed by the hunreds just because outfitters and ranchers find them an inconvenience. Stop canned hunting, predator derbies and killing contests- it’s hunters that are embarrassing themselves, you have more power than the non-hunter to stop these egregious practices
        You sound like the blood drenched NRA idiots

      • Savebears Says:

        William,

        We in Montana, did stop canned hunting…

      • william huard Says:

        And you know that will benefit hunters more for doing it

  34. Phil Says:

    By the way Elk, the law does not allow hunting on wolves currently, but some (maybe even many) hunters are still killing them.

    • Elk275 Says:

      I never said the law allows the hunting of wolves. The state and the feds are killing the wolves. There is nothing to stop a rancher from shooting a wolf in the back pasture, but most people are law abiding and will not break the law.

  35. Phil Says:

    Only the state and feds? I find that very hard to believe that the hard-core anti-wolf hunters are not killing wolves. Actually, the law stops a rancher from shooting a wolf. “Most people are law abiding and will not break the law.”? Way to protect your group of society.

    • jon Says:

      I have mixed feelings about this. I’m sure there are some who are killing wolves illegally, but I think most of the people you see claiming they are going to shoot a wolf illegally on different boards and blogs are probably talking nonsense and just saying it just to piss pro wolf advocates off.

  36. Phil Says:

    And that is the entire point Elk. Hunting has mainly to due with the political world so these hunters can get what they want and the politicians can get their wants. You are correct in that there is probably nothing that will stop hunting, except hunters themselves. Hunters are their worst enemies, and people are realizing the truthful agenda from certain hunters. Not all, but the extreme ones. I am willing to bet all the money I have that the general public’s views on hunters and hunting has become more negative in now days then it had even a couple decades ago.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Phil,
      You are correct that a majority of Americans do not identify themselves as hunters. At the same time, a majority of Americans support to traditional sport hunting. That support for hunting has been consistent in national public opinion surveys for years. The same trend applies to the wishes of state residents who do not identify themselves as hunters. If one were to assume that because non-hunters outnumber hunters, in a given state, – that consensus desires for wildlife management are ignored under current hunting based wildlife management policy and programs – that would be a false conclusion.

      • william huard Says:

        Mr Gamblin-
        Your wording is confusing- “At the same time, a majority of Americans support to traditional sport hunting.” That doesn’t make sense. If you are saying that most Americans support “sport” trophy hunting you are wrong! Show me the facts that a majority of Americans support sport hunting! That is BS

      • jon Says:

        Mark, where are you getting this the majority of americans support sport hunting stuff at?

      • william huard Says:

        And take Black Bears as an example, every survey that you take shows that people strongly oppose the hunting techniques that are used like using dogs or hunting bears in the spring when mothers are still nursing their cubs. Trophy hunters really could care less if they leave a cub motherless now do they!

      • william huard Says:

        Jon-
        I suppose Mr Gamblin will say the hunting techniques that will be unleashed on the wolf population will be popular too!
        Electronic calls, trapping, baiting, missed arrow shots- it will be so much fun teaching those wolves a lesson

      • jon Says:

        William, I truthfully believe that in every state, the non-hunters by far outnumber the hunters. Our voices are never heard because we don’t buy hunting licenses. I would like to know where Mark got this notion that the majority of americans support sport hunting.

      • william huard Says:

        He’s pulling the info out of his you know what. Idaho Fish and Game is a joke, the unfortunate thing is that the joke is usually on it’s wildlife

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

        William –
        My wording was clear. A strong majority of Americans support traditional, sport hunting. I understand that could seem contradictory, given the often quoted statistic (correct) that hunting participation by Americans is declining. My point here is that despite that declining participation, Americans continue to strongly support traditional “sport hunting”. Hunting continues to hold a strong place in the American identity, despite the seemingly contradictory nature or that national reality. Of course, the strength of that cultural identity will be even stronger in the more rural western states. The scientific basis for this national trend is well established by professional, peer reviewed social research.

        http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07182/798452-358.stm

        http://poli.ucalgary.ca/wildlifestewardship/system/files/images/factorsrelatedtohuntingUS.pdf

        http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NAMWC_Public_Opinion_Hunting.pdf

      • jon Says:

        “Duda said that when his firm asked respondents specifically about hunting as a source of food or as a wildlife management tool, public support soared to more than 80 percent.

        “Support dropped off markedly, however, when we asked about hunting for sport or trophy collection,” Duda said recently in a presentation to the Outdoor Writers Association of America.”

      • william huard Says:

        Read the information contained in the reports you just cited- support drops dramatically when you ad the numerous ways that today’s “sport trophy hunter” cuts corners and puts the hunting advantage on their side like BAITING, DOGS, CALLS, and the time of the year that the hunt is made. By just making a blanket statement about “traditional hunting” is not telling the real story and you know it.

      • william huard Says:

        As evidenced by all the poaching that goes on in your state you would think that a poaching 101 course is offered with every hunting license! You really don’t know how many wolves are killed illegally because your stupid Governor is a petulant fool. “Well if we can’t kill em all we won’t enforce our wildlife laws- we’ll show you- how pathetic the politics

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

        jon –
        Yes, the level of support or opposition to “hunting” is variable, depending on what Americans perceive to be “hunting”. Sport hunting, is interpreted with a variety of conotations, this blog included. Trophy hunting is often refered to (this blog included) as a socially objectionable practice that is widelyy opposed. In fact, social science supports that conclusion – the references I offered in my last post included. But, ……. what I see you, Phil or William refer to as trophy hunting, is likely considered acceptable by a majority of Americans because hunters who highly value trophy aspects of deer, elk, moose, antelope and a variety of other traditionally hunted species also put a very high premium on the meat they harvest with their kill. I agree that the term “sport hunting” is the focus of philosophical disagreement, which is why I avoid using it whenever possible. However, the North American tradition of hunting, commonly referred to as “sport hunting” continues to be embraced by a strong majority of Americans as a very socially acceptable use of our wildlife resources that is compatible with other social uses and values for wildlife, including non-consumptive enjoyment.

      • jon Says:

        Mark, I’m not sure if you are allowed to answer this, but how many wolves will Idaho manage for?

      • william huard Says:

        Idaho wolf management numbers just don’t tell the public

        a 0
        b 10
        c 20
        d we’ll say more than 20, but less than 50

      • william huard Says:

        Ralph has posted on his website many times what the intentions of this Wildlife Commission and Fish and Game is in relation to wolves. It is shocking that the DOI and USFWS would actually hand the fate of wolves over to these “people”

      • JB Says:

        Mark is absolutely right about US residents’ attitudes toward hunting. A few decades ago a noted researcher from the University of Wisconsin started tracking a decline in attitudes toward hunting and published a number of papers lamenting this trend and wondering what wildlife management would entail without sport hunting. A few years ago I saw the same researcher give a presentation noting how that trend had turned around, and support for hunting in the US was strong.

        – – – – – – – –

        As hunting participation declines, wildlife management agencies must become more responsive to broader public interests in order to maintain support for management activities. While support for hunting remains strong, people are increasingly skeptical of government institutions; and this trend also seems likely to continue.

      • william huard Says:

        JB-
        With all due respect- we explored this last night and the studies that Mr Gamblin used showed very clearly that support diminishes when the “techniques” used to sport hunt go against certain values. To make such a general statement about “sport hunting” maybe true but it is misleading. The NRA recently stopped legislative action to ban pigeon shooting in PA where hundreds of pigeons are left to die on piles of animals, and the NRA claimed that this was an attack on hunting. Do you really think there is much support out there in the community for slob pigeon shooting? Or canned hunting? Or killing bears that have cubs in the spring?

      • JB Says:

        William:

        It is true that the extent to which people endorse hunting is affected by the terms used to describe different types of hunting. Support tends to be highest for “subsistence hunting” and lowest for “trophy hunting”. However, when the question is worded in the most general sense (requiring people to “average across” the various reasons for hunting) we see that public support for hunting is around 75% and has been for quite some time (see figure 4 here: http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NAMWC_Public_Opinion_Hunting.pdf).

        I do not want to be accused of oversimplifying the issue. People’s support for hunting depends upon the hunter’s reason/motivation for hunting as well as the species being hunted (and yes, support for hunting large carnivores is generally lower than other types of species). Nonetheless, Mark is quite accurate in asserting that support for hunting in the US (in general) is strong and has remained stable for some time.

      • jon Says:

        I’ll agree with that, but once you start asking them about other forms of hunting, you will see support increasingly decline. The support is most likely for hunters who hunt mainly for food I take it.

      • william huard Says:

        JB
        As usual you make complete sense and i agree with that explanation. The term “hunting” should be used in the general sense. When the term “sport” is added that’s where the problem comes in. When I hear the word “sport” I have a vision of barking dogs under a tree as ther bear or cougar awaits his or her fate at the hands of the “hunter”.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      jon –
      For the time being, all questions to the Department, regarding wolf management, are being handled by Mike Keckler, IDFG Communications Bureau Chief.

    • Phil Says:

      “”I think this opens the door for a new wave of wolf management and it provides some protections and security for wolves, but allows states to show that they can do a good job managing wolves in the meantime,” says Leahy.” Is Defenders of Wildlife seriously jeopordizing wolves to “see” if the states can conduct proper management? This is the exact opposite of what DOF was trying to do prior to the settlement. I still believe there is much more we are not being aware of in this “settlement”.

  37. Phil Says:

    jon: I was about to post the same statement that mentioned that percentages dropped in approval of trophy sport hunting.

    Mark: What was the sample size of these surveys? Could the decrease of amount of hunters be due to the garbage that the extreme hunters put out there? Why not compare the percentages from a wider gap of decades rather then the 10-15 year one? Furthermore; if you look at the data collection, you will see that the majority are not in favor of trophy hunting on carnivores. The acceptance is mainly due to ungulate in which they are used for food. If a hunter (whether or not he/she is stating the truth) states that they hunt for food, then the general public must believe them because we cannot read their minds, therefore; this would be accepted. As I have stated before, I accept hunting as a means of survival, but how many hunters speak the truth when they say they hunt for food but take a photo of their kill posing next to it and post it on the internet?

    “But, ……. what I see you, Phil or William refer to as trophy hunting, is likely considered acceptable by a majority of Americans because hunters who highly value trophy aspects of deer, elk, moose, antelope and a variety of other traditionally hunted species also put a very high premium on the meat they harvest with their kill.” I do not share that statement Mark. The meat used on the ungulate by law (as far as I know) be used in a useful manner. Hunters who use the meat are forced to do so, correct? A trophy does not relate to the amount of meat, it refers to who bagged the best deer, elk, etc with the best antelers. What happens when a sports team becomes champions of their respected league? Do they get a trophy or meat? If this was not the case, then why even have a point system for hunters and hunting organizations regarding the kill’s antelers? Basically, hunters and hunting organizations as a whole changed the term “sport-hunting” to “trophy-hunting” for the same reasons as you indicated, and that is to hide the fact that no matter what it is called it is a sport, and they are trying to hide this from the general public who have no real opinions on hunting (the majority).

    • jon Says:

      Phil, there are many places where people are trying to get sport hunting banned. People in Alaska want grizzly hunting banned. Uganda in Africa has recently gotten rid of sport hunting of lions. I think some people out there do not really want to admit that there are a ton of people who want sport hunting banned. I think far too many people are disgusted by it and feel like it has no place in the world today. I’m certain if a survey was done today, most americans would be against “sport” hunting. let them know what sport hunting actually is. It’s not killing a deer to put on your table. Let them know the consequences of sport hunting like how bear cubs and cougar cubs are sometimes orphaned because hunters have shot their mothers. You let the american people know what really goes on and I think a large majority of them would be appalled to find out what sport hunting is actually all about.

      • Phil Says:

        jon: The problem is that the term “sport-hunting” would not be used as what it truly is. It will be hidden behind excusable factors as to why it should be accepted, similarly to how Palin worked her powers in Alaska.

        Here is a statement from an article to back up your grizzly bear hunting, but in Canada. “According to a random poll conducted by Ipsos Reid in 2009, 79% of British Columbians oppose the trophy hunt of bears in the Great Bear Rainforest. Five other polls have been done since 2000 on this issue, and they all show the vast majority of British Columbians oppose the trophy hunt, including a majority of BC-registered hunters. British Columbia supports one of the greatest diversity of bears in the world, however, our government continues to treat bears as an expendable resource.”

      • jon Says:

        Phil, the problem is we humans (some of us anyways) look at wildlife only as a natural resource. Wildlife is animals that are beings of this planet. They have a life and should be entitled to live that life. God if you believe there is a god put the animal on the planet for a reason and it wasn’t to be killed by a sport hunter to be displayed on their trophy wall.

  38. Phil Says:

    I found this kind of interesting. Mark’s site links were written by Damian Duda. Damian Duda also wrote a book entitled “The Sportsman’s Voice”. He is president of “Responsive Management”. Apparently he is a speaker for hunters. Basically, it’s like asking someone like Rockholm to conduct a survey on the affects of wolves on ecosystems.

    “Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director of Responsive Management, will present an overview of hunting participation in the United States and provide recommendations for hunter recruitment and retention.

    http://www.outdoorcentral.com/2009/06/19/michigan-seminars-on-the-future-of-hunting-in-america-including-research-based-recruitment-and-retention-strategies/

  39. Phil Says:

    I did a little research on Damian Duda (the writer of Mark’s website links) to find out that he wrote a book entitled “The Sportman’s Voice”. He apparently is trying to advocate for hunting and hunters. It’s like ltting someone like Rockholm to conduct a survey on the affects of wolves in ecosystems.

    “Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director of Responsive Management, will present an overview of hunting participation in the United States and provide recommendations for hunter recruitment and retention.” “Outdoor Central” Just my opinion, but I do not find him as a neutral source on this type of an issue.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Phil, jon, William –
      As JB confirms, the reality of strong support by average Americans, non-hunters included, for traditional North American hunting practices is well established by a number of well respected social science research experts.
      Broad statements about “trophy” or “sport” hunting are easily misleading without specific clarification. What any one of us might mean by the use of one of those terms may not be what another understands or values. It is however, clear that “sport hunting” is the term most commonly used to describe the North American tradition of hunting that continues to be a strong American value.

  40. Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

    jon –
    You are correct that human society has always, always will and should consider and manage wildlife as a human resource. That is consistent with fundamental ecological principles in the sense that all species rely on other species for their sustenance and survival. The human species is perhaps the only member of our ecosystem that has the capacity of self awareness AS a member of our ecosystem and awareness of the effect our actions have on our ecosystem and our own self interests. Animals (non-human members of our ecosystem) have a ROLE in the ecosystem, as we humans do. Only humans have RIGHTS, within our human society. Human rights is/are a uniquely human societal concept that is applied by human society only to humans. There is not such thing in ecological principles as a “right” of any species to exist. Species have come and gone due to the interactions of species within our ecosystem, without any role or effect by humans. Hunting will continue to be a natural and appropriate use of our wildlife resources, so long as hunting is sustainable and compatible with the norms of our human society.
    We in the western states can look forward to a long future for the continuation of the hunting tradition, with inevitable necessary changes by the citizens of each inidividual state, as society itself changes.

  41. Nancy Says:

    Mark – “sport” hunting to me is like gopher hunting – someone who kills for some sort of selfish gratification or bragging rights. Someone who has little regard for other forms of life. Taking out the best of a species just doesn’t make sense.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Nancy, your personal values are important, not just to you but also a member of our society. The key portion of your above comment is “…..to me….”. You acknowledge that is your personal value and you explain why you hold that value. Your definition of “sport hunting” is just that – YOUR definition. And that was one of my earlier points – “Sport Hunting” is a subjective term that means different things to different people and frequently gets in the way of clear communication about a very important topic. I sugges that a better way to discuss any of the variety of hunting practices would be to clearly speak to that practice. BTW, shooting live pigeons, penned elk or other examples of SHOOTING animals under controlled conditions are examples of practices that do not meet the conventional definition of the North American hunting tradition.
      Your values and judgements of others motivations for hunting are just that – your personal values and judgements and should be respected accordingly. However, I couldn’t agree that you – or I – are in a position of authority to know what motivates others to hunt. The act of hunting is indeed selfish and entirely appropriate in the same way other predators are selfish when they take the life of a prey animal. I can say from my own experience that the community of hunters I have lived and worked with, do in fact have a high regard for the animals and lives they take in the act of hunting.

      • jon Says:

        Mark, this is only my opinion, but I don’t think many people think that predators are SELFISH because they eat other animals. Predators need to eat in order to survive. Human hunters on the other hand hunt for different reasons and some of those reasons don’t have anything to do with hunting for survival.

      • jon Says:

        Predators have no choice, but to take an animal because if they don’t, they won’t survive and they will starve. I cannot say the same about most human hunters.

      • Phil Says:

        Mark: The terms “sport-hunting”, “Trophy-hunting” satisfy no important significance to ecosystems coming from the hunters themselves. Hunting to feed family is one thing, but hunting to serve a “sport” activity is completely different. I would see you backing up this issue of sport and trophy hunting, but logically it is not of value to anyone with the exception of organizations (IDFG) and the hunters who use it as a sport. “Other animals are selfish when they take the life of a prey animal”? You really believe that? If your definition of selfish is to keep yourself and your young survived, then so be it. Then you are basically putting the hunters who hunt to feed their families in the selfish category to, correct? I have never seen it that a predator hunts and decorates their territory with the head of their kill.

        “”Sport Hunting” is a subjective term that means differeent things to different people…” Sorry Mark, but the term “sport” gives the activity one clear definition. It may be a different definition to the hunters, but what does the definition of the word “sport”? One key wording in the definition is “fair play”. In your honest opinion, is sport hunting truly a fair play for both sides?

      • Salle Says:

        If it was truly “fair play” ~ the word play is an interesting component of this argument in itself ~ but if it was fair hunting (instead of calling it play ~ these guys would be out there hunting with their bare hands or a knife as the tool of choice. I have never seen a wild animal decorate its domicile with trophies either… totally a human thing. Humans are good at making up excuses for their behaviors, I don’t see where other species have the capacity to make false claims like humans do.

      • jon Says:

        Wild animals have no chance against guns. I don’t care what any hunter tells me. Look at all of the wild animals hunters have killed with their guns. it’s not a fair “sport” at all. High powered weapons with scopes on them make it far too easy for hunters to kill animals. Look at they do in Africa when they hunt lions for sport. You have one hunter with his rifle and you have 3 or 4 armed guides with him or hunting partners. This isn’t fair at all. No wild animal is going to win against a human with a gun. The millions of animals killed by hunters with guns proves this. I gave our ancestors respect because they were true hunters to me. They hunted for survival and they actually went after the animal and got real close to it. You don’t see that nowadays with hunters shooting animals from a safe distance away. In my opinion, it’s a real cowardly sport. This doesn’t apply to those that hunt for food to put on the table. If you hunt to put food on the table, you shouldn’t be calling it a sport in the first place. Sport should never involve killing.

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon,

        Your generalizing again.

      • Savebears Says:

        Just to add, more animals survive every year, even with all the high tech equipment than don’t.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Most hunters are below average to poor shots and they miss more than they hit, regardless of high tech anything.

    • JB Says:

      Nancy:

      I think it is important here to understand how the term “sport hunting” came to be distinguished from what we now call subsistence hunting. When the West was being settled, no one would have questioned any person’s “right” to kill any type of wildlife–there was no code of ethics for hunters, there were simply people trying to survive. Sport hunting arose, in part, because the unregulated killing of wildlife led to numerous localized extinctions across the nation. Sport hunters wanted to conserve game populations so that hunting traditions could continue.

      Today we generally use the term “sport hunting” to refer to any and all types of regulated hunting. Thus, the various reasons/motivations people have for hunting are not taken into account–sport hunting includes people who are motivated to get meat (subsistence) and those who simply want to mount a head on their wall (trophy), along with everything in between. So while “sport hunting” conjures up images of selfishness and wantonness for many non-hunters, to those in wildlife management it is simply a synonym for “hunting” as we have come to know it in North America.

  42. william huard Says:

    Most people I think have the common sense to support “Ethical” hunting. Today lobbying groups like the NRA have blurred the ethical boundaries to frame any attempt to stop unethical hunting practices that are outside the North American Hunting Tradition as an attack on “Hunting rights” in general. Until hunters and real conservation minded people confront harmful groups like the NRA about their obstruction hunters will continue to be seen in a negative light

  43. Salle Says:

    Just a little info to inform about who “owns” the news…

    Who owns CNN? or MSNBC? ABC?

  44. Salle Says:

    The Case Against Antibiotics and Big Screen or Big Brother? More on Ag PR
    New research shows a link between drug-resistant bacteria in animals and in food, a butcher writes about the power of small animals in sustainable food and more news on the PR wars in agriculture.

    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/ag_roundup_the_case_against_antibiotics_and_big_screen_vs_big_brother_more_/C619/L619/

  45. Phil Says:

    SB: It does not matter if more animals survive then the ones that are taken. “Fair play” is not accurate when you talk about sport hunting, and, as Salle mentioned, the term “play” is in use to define sport, and sport is what “sports hunters” define themselves as. We talked briefly a couple days ago about some celebrities who hunt, but what purpose does Brett Favre have in hunting? Is he not taking food away from the hunters who depend on hunting? Is he not taking food away from species who depend on hunting? He is the purest image of a sport hunter. Nothing to do with conservation or dependence on hunting, just for the hell of it.

    If you look at hunters who hunt for survival, the category hunting to live by humans is also used in population management of the spcies. The best form of population management comes from predators to the prey. Historically proven, with a healthy predator population there will be a healthy prey population. Let’s take for example Rockholm’s “Yellowstone is Dead” campaign. The population of elk in Yellowstone with regards to many biologists, including Christina Einsberg (Yellowstone Biologist), was extensively over carrying capacity prior to the wolf reintroduction. Since the reintroduction, the population had plumped. Certain cities, like Chicago I believe, was, and I still think are, pondering on whether or not to bring a small population of coyotes in and around the city to help with the deer population. This was after their first suggestion of increasing the hunting season on deer did not fall through.

  46. Phil Says:

    Elk: And you can clearly state that as truthful with no specific data collection on it? Also, wouldn’t that make some theories of elk population being significantly damaged due to bad hunters accurate?

    If I had a say in it, I would approve someone who is on the neutral side (SB) of the issue to conduct a survey on the general public’s opinion on hunting, and not someone like Duda.

    • jon Says:

      Phil, as someone on here said recently, you can make surveys say whatever you want them to say. In these surveys, what I want to know is how many people in america participated in the survey and how many of these americans were hunters?

      • Savebears Says:

        Most surveys in this country are designed to come up with a specific conclusion, you target demographics, just as politicians do when they are running for office..

      • Phil Says:

        Exactly jon. I asked if someone knew what the sample size was, but it does not look like anyone knows yet. If you actually google the topic, you will mainly find two major groups conducting relating to this type of survey. Each group represents one side of the issue, Duda for the hunting perspective, and another animal rights group for the non-hunting perspective. Each had two different percentages claiming their results were accurate. I did not oblige by the animal cruelty/rights group because they could have interfered with the results of the survey, as I believe Duda may have. What I found kind of interesting is that England, followed by Canada were much higher in percentages of being against any form of hunting (IPSOS). These were the only three countries surveyed on this issue. If you remember, Britian was one of the most pronound countries of mass killings of animals. They basically alone were the major reason to the tiger decrease in population until 1972 when the queen took a trip to portions of Asia to see for herself the destruction her people were doing to the tiger population. She eventually, I believe, banned the killing of tigers from any Britian resident.

      • jon Says:

        sb said it. You have to be cautious when reading surveys. Most of them are rigged to come out with a specific conclusion.

      • WM Says:

        SB,

        ++Most surveys in this country are designed to come up with a specific conclusion….++

        I happen to agree with you, but we better not tell JB that.

      • JB Says:

        Savebears, WM:

        Actually, I hear that all the time. Certainly many surveys have been designed to come up with a particular answer. I happen to have a colleague (Republican) who gets regular surveys from the RNC that she passes along to me. What a bunch of garbage. I imagine the Democrats put out similar stuff. Still, you shouldn’t confuse interest group run surveys and straw polls with rigorous, scientific studies of public opinion.

        – – – –

        BTW, it never ceases to amaze me how many natural scientists become experts in survey methodology and psychological measurement when the survey topic happens to be of interest to them. 😉

    • Elk275 Says:

      Why do you need a survey. I see it every year I go hunting, bang, bang, bang and no dead elk, deer or antelope. The biggest problem is that hunters do not practice or only shoot 10 rounds per year before going hunting or know the MV of there rifle and the BC of their bullet. Then the biggest problem is the estimation of distance.

      All hunters should shoot between 60 and 100 rounds every fall before going hunting, use a chronograph and purchase and use a good range finder. Then if they are uncomfortable with the shot, do not take it. Why would an elk population be damage because of hunters missing? A missed elk is a live elk.

      You are to hung up with academia, studies, books and short on real world field experience. Now you are wondering what the MV of a rifle and the ammunition use and what is BC of a given bullet. This all makes are difference after 300 yards. We forgot wind and whether one is shooting uphill or downhill.

      • Phil Says:

        Elk: You are not a relible source. Maybe you are right, and maybe you are wrong. You do not see ALL hunters who hunt, you only see the small population you get in contact with yearly. I will not make a conclusion on a species by taking a few to conduct an experimental project.

        Elk: My studies and such that you are criticizing educated myself to fully understand what is put on the table. Experience is one thing, but if you do not have the intelligence to underestand what you observing through experience then you are out of the loot. Up until the mid or so part of the 20th century, you could be a biologist if you were a hunter, but things have changed since those days. Earning an education from the experts who have decades of experience and using your education to get the experience for yourself goes well beyond then just using your experience to pass judgment on an issue that backs up what you want to believe.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Phil, I have both intelligence and education as do most of us on this forum. I have noticed that you have a way of putting people down and it does not impress me or others on this forum. My analysis, experience, conclusions and most important my integrity, allowed a major financial institution to make a 16 million dollar loan which did not go bad.

        Are you getting a masters in wildlife biology? Just remember that there are fellow students in your class and other degree granting institutions that differ with your beliefs and thinking who are and will be just as capable as you. They will have the same degree but a different view point and pursue policies different. I graduated in 1974 from the University of Montana (finance) and was involved and still am with wild lands protection. I remember students who were anti logging, pro wilderness and bordered on radical environmentalism. That was 35 plus years ago, some have maintained they beliefs while others have taken jobs such as working for a timber company that have compromised their beliefs. A pregnant girlfriend, soon to be a wife and mother and they a father and then financial pressures will change one’s outlook. Oh, they are still are pro wilderness but have a different thinking on general forest use.

        Let’s say you were offered a job with a fish and game department in the Northern Rockies after graduation. Within a short time you would have to conform to the department, commission, politics and the will of the people or you will be gone. It happens everyday. Good Luck.

  47. Phil Says:

    Yes. That is why I did not go by information collected by either of the surveys. Can an accurate survey on this topic ever occur considering this country has over 300,000,000 people in it? To even survey half the people (150,000,000) would take a great amount of time, money and, in my opinion, people.

  48. Phil Says:

    Sorry, when I stated this “If I had a say in it, I would approve someone who is on the neutral side (SB) of the issue to conduct a survey on the general public’s opinion on hunting, and not someone like Duda.” I actually meant (JB) and not (SB). My mistake.

    • Mtn Mama Says:

      Just came back from Lamar in Yellowstone. Didnt get to see the Blacktails. Did see the Agates and the Lamars. The Lamars put on quite a show and made a double kill (elk) one morning. The Lamar Alpha Female 06 is one amazing wolf. Her pregnant belly is clearly visbile now, unfortunately so is her mange.

  49. Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

    The philosphical side of these debates are always interesting – and impossible to bring to a final conclusion. I’ll return to my original purpose – to make clear that the North American tradition of HUNTING continues to be accepted and approved by a strong majority of Americans. That tradition includes the conventional objectives of hunting for meat, antlers, hides/pelts and the unique individual gratifiction hunting brings to humans as participants in the dance of predator-prey relationships and our role in the ecoystyem we live in.
    The debate over “fairness” (no such thing in nature) and other human “rules of engagement” in the hunting tradition is part of the social process of HOW we humans will continue to be ourselves – the top predator of the ecosystem we inhabit.
    BTW Phil, the concept of selfishnesh that I refered to was an ecological concept, not the human ethical concept you referenced. All species are ecologically selfish. Any species that is not ecologically “selfish” ceases to exist.

    • Phil Says:

      Mark: I find it very difficult to believe your statement that “traditional” hunting (hunting done centuries ago) was done in the form of antler collection. Hunting back in the “good old west” days was not for the purpose of collecting the biggest and best antlers, it was for collecting food to put on the table. Yes, I can understand the majority accepting “traditional” hunting, but not sport or trophy hunting, and your source conducted by Duda even proves that. If you want to put the term “selfishness” in ecological standards, then I would tend to agree, because this relates to survival as well. To relate that same term towards humans would not make any sense in comparing it with predators. Predators have an instinctive behavior to be selfish for survival, but how can you compare that to the selfishness of humans who hunt for nothing more then a sport activity? Would you agree that natral selection is a selfish act by one to fulfill a strong fitness? This is an instinctive behavior by the species, but a behavior for their and their young’s survival.

      • jon Says:

        Predators are not capable of being selfish Mark, only human hunters are. You have many hunters today that are killing animals they don’t need to kill in the first place. Do the cougars that are treed by hunters only to be shot, do these animals really need to die? Wild animals hunt because they have no choice. The same cannot be said for a lot of human hunters.

      • jon Says:

        Phil, but the difference is these predators do it to survive. Hunters are not killing mountain lions and bears and wolves for survival purposes. They are doing it because they enjoy killing and they believe it is a sport to them.

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

        Phil, jon –
        Again, a discussion has reached the point of diminishing returns. Leaving the philosphical debate and focusing on the public policy and science perspectives: “traditional hunting” means those hunting practices that have continued for hundreds of years – to the present. That is, hunting as we know it today: the pursuit and taking/harvesting/killing of wild animals by humans for a variety of human uses and benefits. That is the “traditional” hunting I referred to and that the American public has steadfastly approved and supported and continues to do so. Yes Phil – antlers, hides, pelts, meat – all parts of the animal and the experience of killing the animal are intimately a part of the traditional hunting experience. My earlier comments about the imprecise use of terms like “sport” or “trophy” hunting were to draw attention to your habit of suggesting that somehow contemporary Americans do not approve of what YOU mean when you say “sport” or “trophy” hunting. Both of those terms are included in the conventional meaning of “traditional” hunting. Hunting, by the average North American hunter falls within those definitions – traditional, sport or trophy – because the average North American hunter would be delighted to take deer, elk, moose, rabbit, pheasant, etc. for any of the objectives those hunting terms describe. It is that hunting tradition that Americans today approve of and support.
        If you understand what I refer to as ecological selfishness (see “The Selfish Gene” Richard Dawkins for a deeper discussion of the evolutionary/ecological implications of the necessary selfish instincts all living creatures are driven by) then I am communicating with you more effectively. You should be able to understand my point that hunting by humans is most natural – for humans and their prey. Human ethical principles are the rules society develops to guide human social order. Given the acceptance and support for hunting by contemporary American society, your own ethical objections to the hunting tradition are significant for your own personal choices, but have little weight for public policy in wildlife management.

        jon – you ask a useful rhetorical question: “do cougars really need to die?” It is useful because it serves as an example of an irrelevant question. Society has determined that hunting cougars serves appropriate human purposes. Those purposes could be management of cougar numbers to avoid loss of livestock, predation of other wildlife resources, concern for human safety or more likely – the desire by humans to hunt cougars. Your concern for the individual animal – cougar, wolf, elk, rabbit – is translated into your own desire that those individual animals not die, at least by the actions of a human. The good news is that no one is suggesting that you should violate your personal values by killing an animal. The good news is also that our society continues to support the appropriate and very human desire to participate in the life and death processes of nature – the ecosystem we are a part of.

  50. Nancy Says:

    +The debate over “fairness” (no such thing in nature) and other human “rules of engagement” in the hunting tradition is part of the social process of HOW we humans will continue to be ourselves+

    I politely disagree Mark – because I sincerely feel its no longer a situation of HOW we humans continue to “be” ourselves, it has more to do these days with “seeing” ourselves.

    This discussion comes up over and over again here – mankind as “top” predator, manager etc. – but strip a human bare with nothing but their wits and put him (or her) into the wilderness and my guess would be, few, if any, would last more than a few days, especially in winter.

    Those heads, hides, pelts, ALL belong to other living, breathing species (like ourselves) who I’m thinking, would rather hang on to them, given the opportunity?

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Nancy –
      I respect your disagreement and especially your personal values. I would not suggest that you should conduct your own personal behavior in way that would conflict with your own value system. I would disagree with you that somehow others are wrong or unethical because they chose to participate in dance of life and death as it occurs constantly in our ecosystem. You clearly suggest that humans should choose to not kill an elk, wolf or duck for example – because all creatures have an instinct, a desire for life, survivl – including those animals who are killed and eaten, or not, by non-human animals. That is your personal value system which I respect. Most hunters would ask for your reciprocal respect for the choices we make to participate in in nature, so long as those choices do not violate the rules our society has set for the use of our wildlife resources.

      • william huard Says:

        Mark
        What is your opinion about the hunters that are fanatical about wolves killing all the ungulates, decimated game herds etc? Does it disturb you to read about hunters wanting to gut shoot wolves? Where does this sense of entitlement come from that many of us find very disturbing?

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

        William –
        Poaching or other illegal activity as you describe should not be and is not tolerated.

  51. Phil Says:

    Elk: I never stated that you do not have intelligence or education. I strongly recommend you go back and reread what I stated and should understand that I did not refer you were not intelligent. “I have noticed that you have a way of putting people down and it does not impress me or others on this forum.” Do me a favor, copy and paste, or show me where I have ever done what you are claiming I have done? I am eager to see this. Do not try to get any sympathy from others. If you have a issue, then let’s debate about it.

    “Are you getting a masters in wildlife biology? Just remember that there are fellow students in your class and other degree granting institutions that differ with your beliefs and thinking who are and will be just as capable as you.” Thanks, I will remember that as I already am not aware of it. I like how you are trying to take what I have stated of wm and are making an attempt to turn it back in myself. When I was working my first internship, I had a little arguement with a woman with a master’s degree from Michigan State. Her stance was that she was in favor of responsible hunting (not sport hunting), while I was not acceptance of it. We went back and forth on a daily basis until she could not answer my question “If predators are the best form of management, then why are they being hunted?” When I stated this, I was referring to the predators with a small population. Her best answer was “That was a long time ago.” Very intelligent woman, and we still remain friends, but we argue on some issues like this one. As SaveBears once did, if I am forced to do and say something I do not believe in which is backed up through my research, then my job position will be available to another up and comer. As for recieving a job from the FG, I would have to strongly consider that possibly with outcomes of me not accepting the job.

    • vickif Says:

      On behalf of Elk275, and as someone here who posts and has a family tradition of hunting, I find the generalizations and comments about cowardly behavior, hunters all hating wolves etc. an insult to my intellegence, both as a hunter and a wildlife watcher. So I can most certainly see why Elk would say such a thing. I have learned to ignore most of it. But every once in a while, you get tired of being the whipping post for every person who would rather generalize then deal with specifics.

      I have been reading posts here, and posting, long enough to know that Elk275 is a guenuine person, so if he disagrees, he tries to do so with information. I have never seen his posts be discourteous.

  52. Jerry Black Says:

    Mark Gamblin…..do you have the research to back up this statement?

    “the North American tradition of HUNTING continues to be accepted and approved by a strong majority of Americans.”

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Jerry – go to the beginning of this thread for citations and JB’s supporting comments.

    • Phil Says:

      The problem, Mark, is that sport and trophy hunting are not traditional huntings. Look back at the sources you yourself posted, the sport and trophy, along with a couple others, are much lower in acceptance then the ones for hunting for meat, protection of self, and protection of property. If they were all traditional huntings, then they would not have been categorized differently.

      • jon Says:

        Phil, one needs to make the distinction between trophy/sport hunting and regular hunting when doing these types of surveys. Some of the questions I would want on these surveys are questions like these:

        Do you support hunting of bears and cougars knowing their cubs could be left orphans?

        Do you agree with baiting bears and other animals and than shooting them?

        Do you agree with using dogs to chase cougars up trees only to shoot them?

        Do you agree when you see pictures of hunters standing over the animal they killed while smiling?

        Do you agree with hunters that hunt just to show off a trophy to his hunting buddies?

        The list goes on and on.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Hi Jon and Phil

        I can afford to go to the store anytime and buy what I need to eat. But tonight my brother, brother’s girlfriend and our father had backstrap of elk and roast vegetables, one can not buy that in the store. Good elk backstrap is better than any store purchased meat.

        In this day and age I do not need to hunt, but I love to hunt and like the meat, except that I am not very good at remembering to thaw it out.

    • jon Says:

      Mark, the thing with surveys is you can make them say whatever you want them to say.

    • Phil Says:

      I have been going to DOF’s website constantly the past couple days to read any new information of their settlement, and this story is on their main page.

  53. Phil Says:

    Mark: “It is useful because it serves as an example of an irrelevant question. Society has determined that hunting cougars serves appropriate human purposes.” Again: I refer you back to even your own sources and look at the percentages. What society are you talking about? Just the hunters and ranchers?

  54. Phil Says:

    Elk: And it is people like you that are taking that food away from species and other humans that need to feed off of it to survive. Can you imagine what the elk population would be if people did not hunt them for thei own survival? How much would be around for predators and humans who depend on it?

    • Elk275 Says:

      Phil

      I you need to hunt for survival you can not afford to go hunting. It does not pencil out except if you can walk out the front door and go hunting. As far as others who need wild game for there food source, I have give thousands of pounds of meat to food banks.

  55. Immer Treue Says:

    Creative mathematics for deriving NRM states wolf population. Interesting how Mr(s). Fanning and Barry Coe continually fall back on this testimony. Though Mech does say that current wolf numbers in NRM states all but guarantee no fear on genetic inbreeding, they twist every word to fit their argument. Mech’s testimony is included at bottom.

    Mech 5/2008 Thus a better estimate of the actual population could be about 1,700, and thus the 2008 estimate would be 2,108.)

    Fanning 7/2010
    My informed {Mech’s 5/2008} federal court declaration} estimate is that there are over 4,800 wolves in the 3 recovery areas which is why dispersal to Oregon, Utah , Washington and Colorado are happening a lot faster than expected.

    http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/esa/court/dMech.pdf

    • jon Says:

      Ofcourse immer. that is all they do. Notice how they discredit and disregard any american science, but always bring up canadian and russian science? anything they don’t agree with, they discredit it. You know what is going on immer.

      • Salle Says:

        Well, I think that they believe they are discrediting the science but they are actually discrediting themselves by showing their inability to accept things the

  56. Immer Treue Says:

    Read pages 59 and 60 of Appendix 14 where two Russian biologists dismiss the letter written by Will Graves to Ed Bangs. Steve Fritts forwarded it to Dimitry Bibikov, and
    Nikita Ovsyanikov. You can read their reply from the attached document.

    http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/EIS_1994.pdf

    • jon Says:

      Next time when you argue with these two and believe me, when there is a topic on wolves, you can expect these 2 guys to be there, show them that link. I bet they ignore it on purpose. I’d love to see this russian and canadian science they brag so much about.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        One of the first exchanges I ever had with Mr. Fanning was on, I believe, a Wuertner piece that the moderator shut down because comments were getting out of hand. I did bring this up, just prior to the closing of the comments, so I did not receive a response.

      • jon Says:

        I saw your comments to Fanning on bozeman chronicle immer. The article with the nut from Montana who wants a sprint hunt on wolves. You were trying to be civil and respectable and he still came at you like you were his worst enemy. He called us pro wolf advocates “vermin” on the bbb blog. Just goes to show you how hateful these people are.

      • jon Says:

        Immer, I don’t think you will ever get through to these people. I see reality22 becoming more and more extreme with every new comment he writes. He believes wolves in WI cause far more damage than deer and he has referred to wolves as vermin and he likes to bring up how wolves are vicious animal who loves ripping animals open and eating just their unborn babies. I mean these people think wolves are very bad because of the way they kill. They kill with their teeth, so ofcourse us humans are going to think it’s inhumane, but it’s nature and that is how wolves have been killing their prey for thousands and thousands of years. No more inhumane than how lions kill their prey. I think some of these people are becoming more and more extreme. the hatred they have for the wolf is not normal.

      • jon Says:

        immer,

        Barry on March 21st, 2011 10:06 pm
        Thanks all…..I was recently pointed over to Ralps as my name was being mentioned by Imma Notsotruthful. It seems she wants to question a few points about the 94 EIS with me.
        Since I or anyone else who disagrees with the marxist collective over there isn’t allowed to post, I welcome her to step out from behind her censored walls and let’s discuss the document in question. But I warn you sweetheart, you will eat the entire document. If you want to pick at one point, own the entire thing, something in which I am sure you don’t want to do.
        She will want it to be a very short discussion, the only thing she wants to talk about is the fact that Ed managed to get 2, and only 2 Russians to scoff at the concerns that were brought up to him by Will Graves. Of course I am sure she will want to ignore vast amounts of that pile of ed’s feces. I love unwinding this shallow thinker, so come on over and lets talk it over…….
        The things she will mostly want to ignore is the fact we have went over the recovery numbers and the admission in that document that the numbers wouldn’t be raised, that the never ending quest to keep them listed would not be done. Or many other parts of it the wolf nuts want to ignore. We have seen the results of this fairly tale of Ed’s making, and everything isn’t as it was claimed it would be.
        Come on over to the dark side miss school teacher, where censorship isn’t used to only promote one side and to cherry pick only what you think works for you.
        I dare ya………….

      • jon Says:

        Barry, come on here so immer can school you on the facts ya clown.

    • JEFF E Says:

      Immer,
      if you just want Bob”chicken little” Fanning to slither away keep asking about the magic lawsuit he claimes he is going to file. It has only been 4+ years in the making.
      Starting to sound like a cash cow to me. I wonder if the IRS wonders about four years worth of contributions?

      • jon Says:

        Ofcourse Jeff. He knows he can’t afford to fund the lawsuit himself. That is why rockhead made his documentary yellowstone is dead. The money made from the documentary supposedly goes to help Fanning and his waste of a time lawsuit. To this date, the documentary sold only 1500 copies.

  57. JEFF E Says:

    so…..how many follow this
    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/156287

      • WM Says:

        I don’t follow it much, but in the 1990’s had an opportunity to meet four time Idarod winner Jeff King at a kennel club meet and greet, along with about 20 other people. That was before he was sponsored by Cabelas, if I recall.

        He was accompanied by his lead dog of the time, a small and very mellow female husky. He attributed his wins (maybe 2 at that point) to her, and made it clear that a good lead dog is very hard to select for at a young age, and must have stamina, heart and brains. He screened alot of dogs before she showed. As a former Siberian husky owner, I can appreciate how difficult it is to find that combination. Mine had none of those characteristics – he just like to run, dig holes and regularly escape from the yard. He was also a Humane Shelter rescue, and the exhibited behavior may explain how we got him.

    • Doryfun Says:

      I followed it somewhat, as a friend of mine, who sometimes guides for me is/was in the race (his third one). I even named one of my good steelhead holes after his dogs (the Wolf Hole – and a long story). But, to those who are not in the know. Just to finish that race is a major accomplishiment, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who does. Raising that many dogs is also one mega committment. Also, having been with him on a sled one day, I soon learned it is much more challenging than one might at first think.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      I’ve got a friend who has 25 dogs or so, and I’ve gone out with him a few times to work his dogs or move clients around. Moving over lakes is just so smooth. I can’t tell you how “hairy” portages are with twists and turns, not to mention trees and rocks are with a team stretched out 20-30 feet ahead of you . I’ve been knocked off and dragged behind a number of times. It’s just so cool to hook those dogs up. Thay really do live to run.

      • Doryfun Says:

        Immerk,
        Wish I would have had the lake to run on. We were on the significant declivity of narrow, curvy, high mountain (did I mention ultra steep) roads in the Seven Devil Mountains (almost 10000 ft elev peaks) of Idaho. I was fortunate enough not to fall or get dragged, and lucky not to have tripped over the throbbing of my own heartbeat.

        I would love to run the Iditarod, once, just for the experience, challenge, and magic under the fantastic light show. But raising that many dogs and all it entails is nothing I could ever commit to. So I will live vicariously through the eyes and stories of my good friends who do.

  58. jon Says:

    http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,73047.15.html

    Rockhead wants the gray wolves all killed off because he think’s they’re an invasive species.

    A deal is a deal! These people have moved the goal post so many times, the current plan doesn’t have one ounce of resemblance to the “Original Deal”. The latest maneuver by the USFWS/Environmental activists is a sham. The intent of these criminals is to infest every state with wolves, and destroy hunting and ranching.

    Nothing less than complete removal of this invasive species is acceptable. The elk, and moose have taken the brunt of this mess, and we need to remove the Canadian Gray Wolf from “The List”. HR 509 is the Legislation that must move forward, anything else is smoke and mirrors.

    If you need to convince your friends of what is needed, order my film Yellowstone is Dead. It is 2 hours of facts, and the cinematic version of the entire mess.

    http://tinyurl.com/5trqvmx

    Scott Rockholm
    President/CEO
    Save Western Wildlife Inc.
    Rockholm Media Group

    There are “snakes” in this supposed settlement. Dr. Kay is right on ………..you can read for yourself some of the stuff wrapped up in this little gem of a “settlement” !!!!!!!!

    First of all this is primarily the same deal that Baucus/Tester tried to get passed on the CR last December. It only asks the enviros to agree not to sue for 5 years and then it is game on again………it also asks for a science panel review; so what happened to states’ rights to manage? Why are still leaving this in the hands of the Feds?

    Read it for yourselves… [in above PDF file]

    M. David Allen
    President/CEO
    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

    Reaction to the Gray Wolf Settlement:
    (emails received March 19-20)

    Who is going to be appointed to that science panel to review the 300 wolf figure? Recall, that a recent scientific study that summarized all MVP and PVA studies concluded that a minimum of 7500 animals are needed! I would NOT agree to any such review over my collective DEAD body!! This is just a very slick way of increasing wolf numbers! What happens if the panel comes back and says you need 6000 wolves! THIS IS A TRAP!!

    Charles E.Kay
    Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology
    Adjunct Associate Professor
    Department of Political Science
    Utah State University

  59. jon Says:

    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/wolf_settlement_splits_conservation_groups/C41/L41/

    reality22 is at it again. I give it one day before comments are shut off. The wolf haters will show up and get it shut down. Guaranteed!

    • jon Says:

      Our own RH was in this article.

      “Still, Marvel noted, Wyoming politics is deeply embedded into the dual classification of wolves, with trophy hunting next door to the national parks, and predator (shoot-on-sight) status everywhere else.

      Gov. Mead might not feel any need to negotiate further, said Robert Hoskins, a Wyoming conservation activist. By his reading, the settlement document, “gives validity to the ‘87 Recovery Plan, which was analyzed and rejected as Alternative 4 in the 1994 Gray Wolf FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement). The ‘87 recovery plan restricts the recovery area to the (Yellowstone National Park) area, central Idaho, and northwestern Montana. This aspect of the settlement essentially gives cover to the (Fish and Wildlife Service) to approve Wyoming’s dual status law with zero environmental/scientific assessment.”

      “This agreement actually gives Wyoming what it wants,” Hoskins said.”

      • Cody Coyote Says:

        Comments to this NW article were, as predicted, shut down late last night.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Cody C,

        Interesting how when it comes to primitive humans, and their abilities as a “keystone” predator, “they” can use information from Lewis and Clark, and lateral current studies to prove the indigenous people suppressed ungulate populations. I used this same argument from other sources in the past to demonstrate that it was not wolves that had driven ungulate populations down during the time of Lewis and Clark and was referred to as a prevaricator.

        From T. J. Eagan, tough to make out his rant(s), but it did read a bit more anti-wolf in my opinion

        http://westinstenv.org/histwl/2008/06/03/were-native-people-keystone-predators-a-continuous-time-analysis-of-wildlife-observations-made-by-lewis-and-clark-in-1804-1806/

        That piece was about as thick with unhappy people as one can find. Too bad. Not!

      • jon Says:

        immer, humans are not a keystone species. We are too destructive. We make other species go extinct. Cody, people try to be civil when dealing with these hateful wolf haters, but they still try to go for your throat. Newwest should just shut off comments for good.

      • Savebears Says:

        nationalparkstraveler…NOW there is an unbiased organization…ya right…

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,

        I believe this to be the most compelling concern. Depending on who one listens to in terms of the Lolo elk. Though elk are not included in this write-up, every disaster possible seems to have over taken the Lolo elk, including wolves.

        Dr. Chris Darimont is a biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and the lead investigator for the study,”Human Predators Outpace Other Agents of Trait Change in the Wild.” Co-authors are five scientists from respected universities across North America.

        The study looked at data on 29 species, including fish, invertebrates, mammals and plants. Several species studied are of particular interest in a number of parks: bighorn sheep, caribou, and American ginseng.

        The study found that fishing and hunting, as currently managed, are causing surprisingly rapid changes in the body size of a variety of species, along with impacts on their ability to reproduce. The average body size of harvested populations was found to be 20 percent smaller than previous generations, and the average age of first reproduction was 25 percent earlier.

        “By harvesting vast numbers and targeting large, reproductively mature individuals, human predation is quickly reshaping the wild populations that remain, leaving smaller individuals to reproduce at ever-earlier ages,” said Darimont.
        The rate of these changes was also startling. In animal and plant populations subject to human predation, observable changes were occurring three times faster than in natural systems.

        Why is this a problem? Earlier breeders often produce far fewer offspring. Taken together, the “reduction in size and decrease in breeding age of fish and other commercially harvested species are potentially jeopardizing the ability of entire populations to recover.”

  60. mtn mamma Says:

    Captive Buffalo have dominating wild genes

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17661145

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      That’s an interesting article. I’ll be curious to see the results of an follow-up testing.

  61. Salle Says:

    Deal reached to lift wolf protections in Idaho, Montana
    If a judge agrees to delist the predators, hunters in Idaho could be targeting wolves in a matter of months.

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/03/19/1572014/settlement-reached-on-wolves.html

    • jon Says:

      Salle, there is a bit of confusion about that. Someone emailed Liz Bradley, the wolf specialist in Montana about this particular story and here is what she said in her response back to the person.

      Let me see if I can clear up what may have been some confusion from the newspaper article. We did not target the Lake Como pack per se, because as I said, we did not know if they were responsible. Our goal was to remove the offending animals because that has the best chance of reducing further depredations. Because of this all control efforts by Wildlife Services were made near the depredation site on the ranch where it occurred. We felt like this approach had the best chance of getting the wolves involved, regardless of knowledge of whether they belonged to the Lake Como pack or not. I hope this helps but please let me know if there’s anything else I can do to clarify the situation.

      Liz

      Liz Bradley
      Wolf Management Specialist
      Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
      3201 Spurgin Rd
      Missoula, MT 59804
      (406) 542-5523 (o)
      (406) 865-0017 (c)
      lbradley@mt.gov

    • william huard Says:

      They found two sets of wolf tracks near the carcass! Sound like typical junk pseudo Wildlife Service Science. That’s one of the things that floors me the most- most of the time they can’t even tell how the cow was killed- it’s easier to blame wolves

  62. wolfsong Says:

    Thought you might find this interesting. A commentary on the legality of the “Interior Solicitor’s Memo” regarding ESA.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7880396/department_of_the_interior_attempted.html?cat=17

    • Salle Says:

      I’ve met this individual numerous times and have learned to avoid him at functions. I can’t go any further with my opinion on this due to possible libel issues. I don’t put much stock in his writings given his interactions with management concerns in the past. He may actually have a point in this writing but I would be very careful to fact-check every claim before deciding to buy into it. (I didn’t go past the first page when I saw who wrote it.)

      • wolfsong Says:

        Thanks Salle! Not being familiar with the writer I wasn’t sure how much to believe or not.

  63. timz Says:

    Our resident tax cheat and robber of school children is at it again.
    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/03/22/1576359/bill-would-allow-idaho-wolf-kills.html

    • Phil Says:

      Are there any government Reps in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming that are for wolves? It seems like ALL of them are highly againt wolves.

      • timz Says:

        most or all of the Dems vote against these types of bills. Too bad there are only a handful of them.

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      Phil Hart probably believes he is some kind of incredible patriot. The same kind of “patriot” that gushes false humility like “I’m a common man fighting for what’s right”, then booms with condescension to anyone whose opinion differs with his even to a tiny extent.

      (Never met Phil Hart, just guessing)

      There’s no conflict of interest in railing against income taxes when you owe half a million yourself, right?

  64. william huard Says:

    Phil Hart’s legislation is living proof how idiotic these legislative efforts are concerning wildlife protection. He does realize these wolves are FEDERALLY PROTECTED right? Screw the darn feds- and better yet, next week we’ll introduce legislation so you don’t have to pay your taxes(Ooops I don’t pay them now). I feel sorry for normal regular americans that have decency and basic common sense having to deal with these misfits- What an embarrassment. Asking Idaho to manage wolves responsibly is like asking a pedophile to watch schoolchildren and hoping nothing bad happens.

    • Salle Says:

      Flaming idiots. The wolves were curious as to what the smelly human was doing, acting in an unusual manner and invading their space. According to him, they never approached him, just watched. If he’s so afraid of the wildlife, maybe he should just stay in the house since he hasn’t the sense to go back when the weather is nasty enough to take his life. But then, aren’t snowmobiles invincible??? Certainly a manly man and a snowmobile are…

      • anna Says:

        Here’s a question.. are there even wolves in that area of Idaho?

      • JEFF E Says:

        yes

      • timz Says:

        I think this is a great story in that it proves man has little or nothing to fear from wolves in the wild. He didn’t seem to really express a fear of wildlife, anyone would be a little nervous sleeping among wolves in a winter storm.

      • JEFF E Says:

        the wolves probably would not come any closer because of the huge cougar that was perched in the tree just above…………..

        (just kidding, just kidding…)

    • Phil Says:

      Now that I know he is ok, I am laughing at the image of the wolves just watching him. It reminds me of students watching their professor and learning from him/her. Wonder if the wolves were trying to learn from him? My opinion is that they were watching his every move to assure themselves that he was no danger to them, their territory, etc. I wonder what people like Bruce are making out of this story? They are the ones that are saying wolves attack in these types of situations.

      • Salle Says:

        And they were only curious about him. They could have had him if they thought he might be food. It may seem odd but I find that the behavior of wolves in the wild resembles that of cats in the house or in the wild. They are curious and quietly observant.

        It seems like the reporter was trying hard to get some drama factor out of it more then the guy did. I think if it were me, I think I wouldn’t have mentioned the part about the wolves and just kept it to myself as a treasured event… but I don’t think I would have got myself lost on a snowmobiile in a blizzard in the first place.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Mention wolves, and you have the advertising value of things like sex and violence. I’ve seen wolves over a dozen times, sometimes they stop and look, sometimes they have simply turned and walked away, and sometimes they have run away.

        If we look at them with curiosity, as intelligent as wolves are, I don’t understand why people can’t comprehend that wolves are at times curious by nature.

        As many times as I have seen wolves, how many times have they seen me, or for that matter most people who venture into wilderness areas, and we are completely oblivious to their presence?

      • jon Says:

        Wolves are curious animals. The wolf haters will tell you that wolves look at you because they want to eat you.

      • timz Says:

        I think they were trying to figure out how to build an emergency shelter from this guy.

      • jon Says:

        Sometimes people will mistake curious wolves for wolves that are trying to eat you. Val Geist is one person who makes this mistake.

        http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/01/15/human-habituated-wolves-in-idaho/

        My question is if wolves are so dangerous to humans, why haven’t there attacked one person since being reintroduced 16 years ago? Like immer mentioned, wolves have probably seen more humans than humans of of them and I’m sure the wolves have had plenty of chances to attack people if they really wanted to. I’m not going to say it will never happen, but some idiots make it seem like wolves are the most dangerous things in the world. These people are usually the ones who don’t want wolves in their state. There’s nothing wrong with wolves looking at people.

      • jon Says:

        I got that vibe too Salle. She was trying to make it all about wolves. The guy didn’t seem to scared about it. He wasn’t talking about the wolves until the reporter asked him about it.

  65. jon Says:

    Would anyone dare try to attempt what this guy is doing? Talk about having guts!

    • Savebears Says:

      Guts and stupidity is two entirely different things Jon..

    • Savebears Says:

      No, I will not, will you? I have no need to be in Missoula on Thursday. I suspect that few of those who post on this blog will be standing outside the courthouse either, I actually support a negotiated agreement over a congressional mandate to delist wolves.

      • jon Says:

        sb, have you heard anything new from Schweitzer about wolves?

      • Savebears Says:

        No, not as of late, I believe he is waiting until this next round of hearings and legislative business is done. Right now he is more focused on the State budget and some other issues going on in Montana.

    • Phil Says:

      “Timothy Treadwell’s cousin”? There is a difference between what this man is doing and what Timothy did. The animals in the sanctuary have known Mr. Richardson since they were young, especially the lions in the sanctuary. They have experience dealing with him and know he is no threat to them as this is a major factor to predator attacks on humans. Timothy worked with wild grizzly bears. I do not agree with what either has and still is doing in getting that close to these predators, but it is what they believe to be a useul tool to conservate their species.

      As some may call it stupidity (as it may be the case), I would also call it intelligent on the species behavior. Mr. Richardson also works with hyenas, wild dogs, giraffes, zebras, amongst other species.

      • jon Says:

        They are talking about the guy in the video I posted above Phil. That guy is not Kevin Richardson. I find it rather off that sb calls this guys action stupid because his good buddy Casey Anderson is best friends with a close to 1000 pound grizzly bear. He takes walks with it and throws it a birthday party.

      • Phil Says:

        Oh. I thought it was the Kevin Richardson video you posted. I don’t think (to a certain point) this is stupidity. This man knows a great deal of lion behavior, especially the false jump start, which the younger male portrayed on the video. It also is visual evidence that predators will more then likely not attack unless they feel a threat posed by the other that is not a food source. Now, the arab man wrestling with the male lion in the following video is absolutely stupid. The slightest belief from the male lion that the man was a serious threat to him due to any physical contact could have triggered his defensive mechanisms to kick in and attack the arab man.

      • jon Says:

        Phil, have you caught that new show blonde vs. bear on animal planet? It’s a good show I think. Dave Salmoni was attacked by a lion he was training a few years ago. Just goes to show you no matter how well you think you train your lions, one can attack you for whatever reason in an instant. What Timothy did was different than what Kevin has done. Kevin has raised a lot of his lions since they were cubs. Some say that tame animals are more dangerous than wild because they say the tame ones are used to people and aren’t afraid of them.

      • Phil Says:

        jon: I have not seen that show. It is a stimulation factor in that one wrong move can be seen as a threat by the predator. A few years ago one of the zookeepers was attacked by the older male lion. As a zookeeper there are step by step procedures the keepers use (from their training after being hired) in handling the animals, especially large predators. The keeper was a new keeper who had been on the job for 5 weeks up to that point. During the time of day when the lions were set to come in and be fed inside their stationary he had missed a key procedure, and that was to lock the gate that sits between himself and the lions tunnel that leads to the inside enclosure. The gate of the door was shut but not locked and the lion was aware of this. The keeper rose his hand over his head to pull on a roped chain that opened the gate to the lions enclosure and the lion saw this as a threat and it triggered a defensive mechanism and ran to the door and opened it with his paw and nose and attacked the keeper. The attack was not one in which he wanted to do severe damage, it was just a “watch what you are doing” kind of attack. If he really wanted to do damage, he would have killed the keeper right away, but he is a gentle male lion who had never previously attacked anyone. He was found in a crackhouse in the city 12 years prior as a cub and was rescued. Dave Salmoni is an excellent zoologist working with large carnivores.

  66. Paul White Says:

    http://fieldherpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5060

    Rosy boas documented in Nevada😀

  67. Virginia Says:

    PLEASE – read this article about “Salazar’s Folly – Opening Up Federal Land to Big Coal.” Our “esteemed” Sec. of Interior is on a run to pollute and destroy more of our Western environment.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03232011.html

  68. Daniel Berg Says:

    “Court: Man mauled after smoking pot gets work comp”

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014589407_apusbearattackworkerscomp.html

    Apparently bears might get aggravated by the smell of marijuana. I would have thought the opposite to be true.

  69. Cody Coyote Says:

    Briefly, the manager of the Sleeping Giant ski area west of Cody WY near the East Entranc to Yellowstone lives in a lodge across the highway from the ski hill. He let his dogs out one morning and they took off. One, a Heeler-German Shephard cross, was shot and killed by a Game Warden when it was seen two miles downriver harrassing two elk. When the Warden finally arrived, he only saw one elk but the dog was attacking it and had chased it a considerable distance, so he put it away forthwith. The whereabouts or condition of the other elk or the other dog’s role in all this is unknown.

    The ski hill manager took full responsibility for his dog’s actions. This was reported in the print edition of the Cody Enterprise this week , but does not appear online.

    It’s worth noting that domestic dogs do more damage to livestock in Wyoming than wolves.

  70. Daniel Berg Says:

    This might be of interest to anyone in Washington State who cares about the environment/wildlife issues. Apparently possible gubernatorial candidate Rob Mckenna is a big Butch Otter fan:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2014589790_mckennasayshesnoscottwalkerbutmaybebutchotter.html

    During a republican event at the Bellevue Hilton, at which Butch Otter was the keynote speaker, McKenna described Idaho as a “business nirvana”.

  71. jon Says:

    San Francisco Coyotes: Welcome Wildlife Or Dangerous Menace?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/san-francisco-coyotes-wel_n_834831.html

    • Phil Says:

      Coyotes are one of a few larger (not large) species that can adapt to living in areas where humans have taken control of, like squirrels, many birds, etc. We have a good amount of coyotes where I attend school, and they have adapted to areas further south where many of the metro area cities are located. I believe the people who complain about them are the ones who do not want to take that full responsibility of taking care of their children and pets and let them play outside or run around outside on their own while they (parents) are inside doing whatever. How many times have shelters and such stated not to let cats outside and run around on their own?

      It is like predators like wolves and tigers presence in the wild, if they are there, then they change the behavior of prey to a more alarming and aware one, and if coyotes are present in the cities, not only do they limit the rodent population, but also change the behavior of humans in taking responsibility of watching their children and pets. I have a friend who lives in Cincinnati, and they have a mating pair who live in the woods in back of their house. They have built in a wooden fence around their backyard and let their dog out to play, but not without supervision of her. The coyotes have been there for 4 years now, and have never caused any trouble for the residence in that area of the city.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Sweet Home Chicago…for coyotes

      • Salle Says:

        But Phil, american dreamers insist that they need to have an antiseptic environment filled with conveniences that relieve them from anything remotely resembling responsibility or independent cognitive functioning… All those wild things out there should be removed so they can go on dreaming… You can’t just have wildlife out there running wild after all ~ as I have heard from many anti-wolf politicians and their pawns.

  72. Wyo Native Says:

    Is there anyway to get rid of the OnSwipe feature that is being used by WordPress?

    As a person who is moving into the IPAD era, I much rather prefer the normal browser look to the blog, than the Swipe feature. It is not user friendly in my opinion.

  73. Phil Says:

    Salle: Yes, to these people the human race should be the only species around. ” american dreamers insist that they need to have an antiseptic environment filled with conveniences that relieve them from anything remotely resembling responsibility or independent cognitive functioning…” Just say it like it is Salle, these american dreamers want to be lazy. For example; these anti-wolfers hate wolves for many reasons, but one may be due to the fact that wolf presence has changed prey behavior which in hence has changed the way hunters have to go about their hunting styles. These changes of the hunters has probably created a more “challenging” way of hunting (lazy). Can you imagine how easy it would be to hunt without any keystone predators such as cougars, wolves or any others in different geological ecosystems? Man, that would be a dream for some hunters and even individuals who do not hunt, but want the easierst (convenient) way of life. Heaven forbid that these types of people actually break one drop of sweat in their lifestyle.

    • jon Says:

      Phil the #1 reason why hunters hate wolves is because they eat elk and deer. Hunters don’t like competition.

      • Phil Says:

        That is one reason, but there are others. That could be the number 1 reason though. The thing I have found interesting is that hunters are more hostile towards animal predators they have to compete with then towards one another. You would think they would have more hostility towards one another in competing with elk and deer then towards predators such as wolves, cougars, etc.

      • jon Says:

        Yeah, I think they just hate animals for whatever reason. I never see hunters bitching about other hunters eating elk and deer. They only bitch when animals kill deer and elk.

      • vickif Says:

        Jon,
        Where do you get that information from?

        I stopped posting here for a long time, because you cannot argue rationally with someone who functions completely out of emotion. People turned every little comment into a pro or anti hunting arguement.

        After my original post here, years ago, I received an email from someone welcoming me, because he felt that my inout was valid due to the need to include all groups of people (hunters, animals rights groups, ranchers, wildlife watchers etc.) in creating productive solutions to ALL issues of ecological concern.

        I had posted, way back when, that I believed the answers lay in a compromise which afforded each group some of what they wanted. I stated, much to some people’s dislike, that if there are going to be wolves, they should be hunted as a trophy species once their populations were established. Then WIldlife officials and biologists could determine a number and time of year for a trophy hunt, with applicabel trophy fees going back to conservation.

        Needless to say, I got bashed a lot that day. But since the person who welcomed my posts was Ralph, I kept right on posting.

        Since then I have taken flack from people to the extreme pro-wolf side, like yourself, and the extreme anti-wolf side. But I have never once waivered from the stand that we are ALL just as justified in our opinions as the next person.

        I have recently read references comparing shooting an animal you love to shooting your spouse. I have also read how hunters just hate wolves, hate the competition from wolves.

        To the first I ask, if you were a police officer, and you shoot a suspect who had just kidnapped someone and pointed a gun at you, do you rejoice in that? No, because although you are saving a life, you have taken one. Do you hate the suspect you killed? Or did you have a responsibility? A job to do? A person to save? Using a human/wolf kill comparrison can easily work against you. Because these hunters have a family to feed, friends to relate to, ranchers have a way of life to protect, income to maintain, and a historical pride to maintain. Right or wrong, hard or easy, they have their reasons. You may not agree with them, they may even seem barbairic, but anthropologists can say that these types of behaviors have come from years of evoluationary behavior. So tread lightly, as you may choose to use science to support your stand, it can often just as easily be used to negate it.

        You can’t say hunters don’t like competition, and then later argue that trophy hunting is why wolves are hated, because trophy hunters esentially compete with historical records of previous hunters.

        The reality is, when the elk become too scarce for hunters, they are likely too scarce for wolves. So, you won’t have an issue, because wolves won’t be eating and hunters won’t be filling tags. Mean while, we should be thankful the wolf population is high enough for there to even be an arguement.

        Since we don’t have a window into everyone else’s minds, we shouldn’t profess to know if their opinions are founded or not. Even if they are unfounded, those people are no less entitled to have their opinions than you. But throwing in generalized and stereo-typical analagies are not just inflammatory, they lessen others’ ability to consider what you say as an intellectual arguement. It cheapens the validity of what you try to get across. Maybe try other ways of strengthening your point, just a friendly suggestion.

        Phil,
        I agree that some cultures have grown lazy, Americans have a hugely false and inflated standard of living. That is part of the reason why we have feed lots and hog farms. It is easier to have every thing at your ready, and requires far less physical or mental excersion.

        No doubt, we are causing our own human demise by creating a weaker species, unable to fend off small illnesses without pharmacutical intervention. We are creating super bugs and most folks have no idea that all the pills we take are creating viruses and bacteria that mutate at unpresidented levels. Soon, we will gone from feeiling invencible, to wearing bubbles to go shopping.

        But the greater lesson is, we should revert a little (eat better, excercise more, and step away from the remotes and antibiotics), and deal with issues based on the impacts we predict they will have decades down the road.

        Having said that, if my child were ill or at risk of being exposed to small-pox, you can bet your behind I would have them immunized. Such is the human condition.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        vickif,

        In a way, you said it all.

      • Savebears Says:

        Vicki,

        Unfortunately at this time in our history, it seems as if taking a more moderate stance on any issue, is more suicidal than sane!

    • vickif Says:

      Save Bears,
      That sadly may be true. I am one of the crazy people who say, yes to the right to arms, no to illegal immigration, yes to requiring lower carbon emmissions, no to public land grazing, yes to wolves and to hunting them when the time comes….I guess I just have no place to belong. I think most people I know have no place to belong either.

  74. jon Says:

    killing is what I meant to say.

  75. Phil Says:

    Immer: Notice how one of the individuals of that coyote on the bridge youtube video changes the subject from killing the coyote because they are not “smart” to racial remarks. I would put a bet on the coyote in a game of Jeopardy then morons like that guy.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Phil,

      I don’t even bother reading those comments anymore. Your comment observation is one of the reasons why.

      • Phil Says:

        Right Immer, let’s just ignore issues like racism. Although my comment was to show idiocity of others and their racial remarks, I did not post it to that person to inflate the fuel. I am not black, but I have respect for people from other races, and when you endulge in killing and combine that with race, it is not a great combination. But, in your idea, let’s just ignore it. Good plan.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Lets get the FCC to regulate forums and blogs!

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Phil,

        Why do you insist on making an issue of this? Youtube comments, Yahoo comments where thousands could be posting and they can say whatever they want. There were racial comments made in some of the news from Japan!

        I have limited time during the day, where I can post here, and do some research and periodically post on a few other sites in debate over the issues that I have interest, knowledge, and hopefully some advocacy that I can only hope has some positive effect.

        If you’re just looking for an argument I invite you to go to BBB.

      • william huard Says:

        Immer treue-
        You made a comment the other day about me not being any better than the object of my invective or whatever. I have followed these wildlife issues for a long time and one thing I have found out is that you can’t reason with these people using facts or basic common sense. They don’t have the capacity to see the facts. People that think they have the right to tell the rest of us which species of animal have the right to live and which do not will get push back from me. It’s a good thing I don’t live in Idaho or Montana or Wyoming, because by now I would be in jail for breaking someone’s neck or I would have gotten shot by one of the inbreds. Not everyone in the country thinks coyotes and wolves are vermin to be shot on sight. In my state we have the Potter’s too, there are just not as many as out west. We had to go through a 60 day comment period just to consider the possibility of extending a coyote hunting season. The legislation recently proposed by Mr hart shows how out there these people are- How are you going to reason with legislation telling people it is OK to break Federal Law?

      • Immer Treue Says:

        William,

        My comment was not directed toward you, but one, as in anyone. Invectives are counterproductive in any argument. There are more subtle ways to get ***ones*** point across.

        I also said that at times, invectives are tough to avoid. Not to sound the hypocrite, but I responded in such to a comment on this blog site in the not too distant past.

        Think of people like Mech, or Niemeyer, or any other person of real authority on the topic of wolves. Would they stoop to that level? For the most part, on this blog, we are all preaching to the choir. Look what happens on Newswest when the name calling starts. The thread gets shut down. Does that help anyone?

        I also made a comment in the past about bullies, that they just don’t know when to shut up, until they get scared. Is calling them an idiot on the internet going to scare them?

      • jon Says:

        immer, I understand William’s anger. The lack of respect that some have for wildlife is very sickening. Recently, a Montana senator by the name of Ken Miller said he wanted to kill off all of the wolves. With attitudes like these, it’s not hard to understand that those who truly care and value wildlife are extremely sickened by people like this Ken Miller. He will be running for Montana governor in 2012.

      • jon Says:

        This guy is running for Montana governor in 2012.

        http://wolfpreservation.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/republican-candidate-ken-miller-for-montana-says-kill-em-all/

        “Wolf Warriors” on Facebook recently spoke with Republican Ken Miller about wolves. Here is what happened “KILLEM ALL” “That was the answer to the first question I asked Republican Gubernatorial candidate Ken Miller. I asked him why he felt this way. He reply was “because wolves are taking away his traditions and heritage”. He told me the “w…olves are killing all the deer and elk”. He then turned his back towards me and started to walk away. In a voice he could hear I explained that we have 18 percent more elk now in Montana then when wolves were reintroduced into Yellow in 1995. He yelled to me that my information was incorrect. I told him that these statistics came from Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Dont you believe they are capable and accurate. Silence was the response.”

        This is exactly why we do not need politicians deciding the fate of wolves or ANYONE with this mentality. Please visit Ken Miller through this link and tell him what you feel about his comments about wolves!

        http://miller4governor.com/contact/

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,

        In a sense you supported what I have just written. Miller, the analogical bully, did not shut up until faced with something he was unable to respond to without making a fool of himself. Whereas if the retort to him was your just an idiot… would have done nothing.

    • vickif Says:

      Ralph,

      I wonder what percent of the population that posts here are minorities? Or id we know how many people who vote with the consideration of environmental issues are minorities?

      Although I am tired of hearing people argue the race card here, especially since “rednecks” are not recognized as a race, and it never ends….I am very curious about how reaching out to minorities may impact votes on such issues? The political process is such a huge key to the door of change.

      I wonder if gaining the support of the rapidly increasing population of Americans of Mexican decent would be productive? These are a younger generation, who’s families don’t generally come from big oil, or public land ranching. They work hard labor, and I have seen the thrill in their eyes when they see something wild for the first time. I think that is true for most kids, but these kids may be a new and untapped clean slate?

  76. Phil Says:

    “Bitching” is what they do best. Some are even bitching at the settlement, but that’s not good enough because it does not involve EVERY wolf in the settlement.

  77. David Says:

    WHY STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PROTECT YELLOWSTONE CUTTHROATS

    Here’s what happens if you don’t The Lahontan cutthroats the article mentions were part of a storied population in Pyramid Lake, Truckee River anf Lake Tahoe that would tip the scales at up to 40 lbs. No longer.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/23/3498034/big-decline-in-native-fish-in.html

  78. Phil Says:

    Immer: Not an argument, I just refuse to ignore serious issues like racism. My comment was just a post, but you antagonized it with your remarks of my post. Last Monday a student brought in some candy but told people (including myself) they were beebees for a beebee gun. Should I have ignored that? I STRONGLY dislike racist people and is why I pointed out this individual.

    If you clearly read my comment, I stated that I did not post on youtube to increase the hostility. As I rarely have anytime either from school and a fulltime job, I saw the clip because it was yourself who posted it. “Looking for an agrument”? Right, because I should not respond to someone’s comment who posts negativity toward myself. But, then again, I should, as everyone should, just ignore it. See no evil, hear no evil, fear no evil, right? Just do these and we can pretend there is no evil in this world when in actuality there is.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Phil,

      What are you talking about? I simply stated that the observation that you made about the comments that ran with the article was one of the reasons I don’t read any of those comments. Any, you insert the invective, can say anything they want. It had nothing to do with you personally. Please lighten up and quit looking for trouble where there is none.

      • Phil Says:

        Immer: If I was looking for trouble, or even needed to lighten up, then I would have posted responses to each individual on that youtube channel that was against saving the coyote, but I responded to only the individual who posted race comments. As I mentioned, and will be the last time I post regarding this topic, I absolutely dislike racist individuals (whites to blacks, blacks to asians, hispanics to whites, etc)and is why I commented on that person.

      • vickif Says:

        Phil,
        Perhaps it may be better to say “I absolutely dislike the idea that people are superior or inferrior due to their ethnicity.” To say you dislike racists…well, now that white supremacisist consider themselves a unified race based on their beliefs, would make you racist too. There is little reason to talk race on this site, because it doesn’t usually pertain to environmental issues. (There are exceptions) Believe me, most folks here, are capable of filtering the ignorant rants from the real issues.

  79. WM Says:

    Griz bear population growing. Interesting numbers that seem to be higher than previously noted, at least officially.

    http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110327/NEWS01/103270301/1002/news01/Grizzly-population-growing

  80. Phil Says:

    “”This means there is a very high survival rate of females, and a relatively high reproductive rate. They are kicking out babies, and the females are surviving well,” At what age are they kicking out the young? I understand they cannot find out the answer to this question from the observations they were conducting in the article, but it would be interesting to know if they are kicking out babies earlier then the norm? If so, this would contribute to the increase in population as it would serve to the females to mate and breed earlier (possibly every 1-2 years) then before.

    It is good to see that percentages of cubs and yearlings survival seems to have increased.

  81. jon Says:

    http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/News/Local-News/Ranchers-use-billboard-to-express-wolf-views

    Scott Rockholm 1 day ago
    Great sign! I would like to see a $10,000 bounty on the scumbags that illegally introduced these Canadian Wolves. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Self immolation. Enough said.

    • Salle Says:

      A lot of the other comments are really well thought out and make many valid points, though… The blockhead seems to have generated more enemies with his foolish comment. And isn’t what he posted an illegal threat to federal employees? (Could be construed that way…)

    • Phil Says:

      Phillips says she just wants to protect her animals, which is a valid point, but how many wolves have been killed for attacking livestock? Isn’t that one form of protection? Haven’t the federal government and environmental groups tried to work with ranchers in finding better ways of protecting their livestock from predators? I do not see ranchers as bad guys, I see some of them as being selfish though.

  82. WM Says:

    Anchorage wolves reduced in predator control effort to minimize conflicts.

    http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e56df7e10858497e8840a86086412a08/AK–Wolf-Control/

  83. moose Says:

    A situation not good for wolves or people.

    http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=596683

  84. Nancy Says:

    Heard Sandhill Cranes down on the meadow yesterday while out walking my dogs (sorry, no link to this story)

    The cranes are 3 weeks early this year and have no open pastures to wander around on in search of food since there’s still close to 2 feet of snow on the ground in my neck of the woods (and Mother Nature dropped another 5 inches of snow today)

    In like a lion and out like a lion, this March!!!

    Gonna be a rough spring for a lot of animals with this much snow still around.

    Heard wolves howling (and coyotes the night before) early one morning over a week ago and within a couple of days, they took a calf on a ranch close by. (Wolves also took calves, on a couple of ranches, just about the same time last year) The hit squad (WS) was in the air within the next couple of days and were expected to take out atleast one of those wolves.

    The reality is, as long as the government is gonna continue to fork over millions & millions in funding (taxpayer dollars) for predator control, wildlife will never have a chance to co-exist.

    Jon…….. you and Phil too, really need to get your butts out here and experience firsthand. Its really silly to “armchair” as in piss and moan about hunters and ranchers with your comments when it comes to wolves and the frustrations involved with dealing with them (regardless of the benefit of having them back in the ecosystem) in an area that keeps close totals of their lost livestock by predators (precieved or not)

    • Phil Says:

      Nancy: Apparently you continue to miss my comments where I have stated that I have been out there a few times as a volunteer. Apparently you have missed where I mentioned that I have volunteered in Canada, Michigan and Wisconsin with predators like wolves. Anything else you have? Piss and moan about hunters? Again, Nancy, you did not read the comments where I have backed up hunting. I am more so against hunting, but not completely. Before you start attacking others, you should get facts straight Nancy. That would make the situation easier. I don’t know what wolves taking out a calf has anything to do with my or others approach to hunters, but please clarify it for me.

      • TC Says:

        I’ll take a little liberty here and try to clarify for you Phil.

        You don’t live in the same communities as ranchers and hunters, have to work with them, socialize with them, be neighbors with them, send your kids to schools with their kids, and try to work on wildlife and habitat conservation issues with them without losing all social dignity (let alone collegiality or friendships). Every day. For good or for bad, productively or with unfortunate antagonism. You know nothing about ranching or hunting – your posts speak to this eloquently. I tried once politely to tell you to close your mouth and open your eyes and learn, and I agree with Vicki, part of that learning is doing. The old phrase see one, do one, teach one taught in medical disciplines is pretty useful, and I’d add THEN talk about one at length as the fourth corollary.

        Someone posted a very nice piece earlier about being a hunter and believing strongly in wolf reintroduction and restoration (and I share that boat with him), and about how some ranchers are quietly optimistic about learning to live with wolves, as they’ve lived with bears and mountain lions and elk and other species forever. There are a few, and with generational turnover, hopefully there will be more. There is a continuum of beliefs in the ranching AND hunting communities on wolves, wildlife and habitat stewardship, energy extraction, water and mineral rights, heck, even social values, and you just do not have anything near a lifetime of experience living and working with these people to pass judgment. Yet. Most of the people making a name for themselves in the press or on the internet blindly hating wolves and egregiously ignorant about wildlife conservation are not the ranchers and hunters that you’d meet if you lived here for years and gave people the benefit of the doubt, until they scorch that trust. Some do, but I’ve found it’s not many if you’re honest, sincere, and well informed. It’s hard enough trying to educate people about wolves, other predators, wildlife conservation, critical habitat issues like winter range/disturbance/fragmentation/migration and connectivity corridors, climate change, invasive species, disease interfaces, etc., without making instant enemies of many of them before you can even deliver a sound scientific message. And the message better be sound, based on best available science and not emotion or groundless opinions, or you’ve then unloaded both barrels and missed clean.

        Isn’t there an interesting scientific question that we could all chew on, instead of hacking at each other?

    • Dusty Roads Says:

      Save Bears,

      Thanks for posting that. I like Carolyn, I didn’t like some of the decisions she was forced to make, for reasons I won’t go into on a blog, but I liked her honesty and the way she went about developing the originally accepted wolf management plan for Montana. It, then, was a time when Montana had the “high road” lead on wolf management options.

      Too bad that Maurier is such a political pawn. At any rate, I’m glad that she’s being recognized for her work.

      • Savebears Says:

        I had worked with Carolyn for a short time, when I was with the agency, she is a good person, that really did have the best interest of wildlife at heart and she was in a very difficult position, she was in a very difficult position, considering, no matter what she did, someone was going to be mad. I am glad to see her get the recognition she deserves…

        She simply lost her position, due to the political situation that surrounds wolves..

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        Save Bears,

        You are right, given the political trends there was really no choice she could have made that would have saved her job or conserved the wolves of Montana.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      It’s good Sime got honored. In her position she had to do a lot of things that were irritating and not to the benefit of the wolves, but I think she did her best to hold back the forces of reactionary stupidity, standing up as best she could for the Montana of not so long ago, before it fell into the clutches of worst of the land barons, far right wingers, and professional haters of science.

      Eventually they got her job.

  85. TC Says:

    Have I been banned from posting on this forum? My last four posts all have failed to go through. I wonder if I’m technologically inferior as an alternate hypothesis. Well, I’ll try again and see if it goes through.

    Phil – some thoughts in response to your post above, responding to Nancy.

    You don’t live in the same communities as ranchers and hunters, have to work with them, socialize with them, be neighbors with them, send your kids to schools with their kids, and try to work on wildlife and habitat conservation issues with them without losing all social dignity (let alone collegiality or friendships, or worse, making lifelong enemies). I believe you know very little about ranching or hunting – your posts speak to this eloquently. I tried once politely to tell you to close your mouth and open your eyes and learn, and I agree with Nancy, part of that learning is doing. The old phrase see one, do one, teach one taught in medical disciplines is pretty useful, and I’d add THEN talk about one at length as the fourth corollary.

    Someone posted a very nice piece earlier about being a hunter and believing strongly in wolf reintroduction and restoration (and I share that boat with him, so there’s at least 2 of us out here), and about how some ranchers are quietly optimistic about learning to live with wolves, as they’ve lived with bears and mountain lions and elk and other species forever. I know a few ranchers like this also, and with generational turnover, hopefully there will be more. There is a continuum of beliefs in the ranching AND hunting communities on wolves, wildlife and habitat stewardship, energy extraction, water and mineral rights, heck, even social values, and you just do not have anything near a lifetime of experience living and working with these people to pass judgment. Yet. Many of the people making a name for themselves in the press or on the internet blindly hating wolves and egregiously ignorant about wildlife conservation are not the ranchers and hunters that you’d meet if you lived here for years and gave people the benefit of the doubt. Slob ranchers and slob hunters exist, but so do fascinating, high educated, and very socially conscious ranchers and hunters, some highly invested in wildlife conservation. It’s hard enough trying to educate people about wolves, other predators, wildlife conservation, critical habitat issues like winter range/disturbance/fragmentation/migration and connectivity corridors, climate change, invasive species, disease interfaces, etc., without making instant enemies of many of them before you can even deliver a sound scientific message. And the message better be sound, based on best available science and not emotion or groundless opinions, or you’ve then unloaded both barrels and missed clean.

    My contribution to moving the discussion back to interesting science:
    http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/1/78

    • Immer Treue Says:

      TC,

      I agree with your post. In regards to your link concerning CWD, I have used the issue of wolves and containing CWD with Wisconsin deer with one of my anti-wolf sparring partners on many other links. Please don’t think I’m using your comment as a lead in to why wolves are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but wolves may actually provide a financial dividend to upper midwestern states, but positives do exist.

      In the long run, in the upper midwest, though wolves do cause problems and will ultimately be delisted, their over all benefit is positive. Wisconsin, statewide county by county deer/auto collisions have decreased since the wolves have repopulated a great deal of the state.

      It would also be interesting to follow the ebb and flow of Lyme disease in the upper midwest. The white-tail deer also cost’s Wisconsin taxpayers more than a million dollars a year in agricultural damages.

      Keep on posting. As others have been saying, the more common ground that can be found among ranchers, hunters, pro-wolf, and general wild life enthusiasts the sooner everyone, two and four legged will benefit.

      • vickif Says:

        Immer,
        Tracking Lyme disease may be harder, as it pertains to humans. The symptoms are often mild in early stages and go undiagnosed for what is suspected to be long periods of time. Lyme disease mimmicks (sp) so many other illnesses.

        It is now being researched for any link or mistaken diagnosis for ALS. They are attemtping clinic treatments with mass doses of antibiotics in effort to treat ALS assuming it is sometimes Lyme disease that has progressed, and therefore misidentified.

        I think a wolf would be able to easily sniff out an ailing elk with Lyme disease, as one of the most prevelant symptoms is joint swelling and pain. But if you could show a benefit to people….that is medical gold.

        What is even more interesting is how wolves can eat these afflicted animals with no appearent ill effects….Figuring that out would be medical gold times a million.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Of all the things in N. Minnesota that concerns me the most it is Lyme disease. The vets really don’t like vaccinating dogs for it, as they feel a vaccinated dog that gets Lyme can all but be written off.

        Were you referring to afflicted animals as CWD or Lyme, as I don’t think deer actually are afflicted with Lyme. It’s transmitted by a larval form of the tick about the size of a pin head. The adult tick that lives on the deer is not the one to worry about, mostly because you can see it. I could be wrong and if I am I’m sure someone will point that out.

      • vickif Says:

        Immer,
        No deer do not get it. But dogs do. So why not wolves? I am sure they get the ticks from the deer.
        It’s all pretty fascinating.
        We know people can get CWD, and Lyme disease. So if we can show wolves are a viable answer to that (prion disease and it’s study is badly in need of help), we will have another reason to argue their usefullness-and give it more validity to their benefits for humans.
        I deal with sick humans, used to deal with sick dogs. I have always found it interesting how much we could learn for medicine when exploring animals and their resistence in nature. Forgive my babbling, I get excited and jabber a ton!

      • Immer Treue Says:

        vickif

        Here’s the cycle for the ticks that cause Lyme.

        http://www.dhpe.org/infect/Lyme.html

        I don’t care much for anything in the arachnid family as fascinating as spider are they’ve always given me he creeps, but ticks are in a class of there own.

      • vickif Says:

        Immer,
        Thanks for the link. I agree, arachnids are pretty darn creepy. I suppose that is why I dream of them when I am stress out! lol They are the horror of my psyche.

  86. Salle Says:

    Ms. Sime was, while at MTFWP, one of the most sane state wolf management functionaries, took her job seriously and did the best anyone could have done given the opposition she faced regularly. I commend her for her honesty and matter-of-fact approach. I never detected any personal emotion in her job performance activities… I know that she had a lot to deal with. I first noticed her dedication during the time that the state wolf management plan was being developed. It was a sound process that she spear-headed and I was mostly in favor of the plan, even though I didn’t particularly agree with all of it, due to the manner in which she incorporated public input during the development process. Montana was the only state, of the tri-state DPS area, that did so.

    Glad to see she didn’t just fade into the sunset and has been recognized for her work ethic as well as her performance.

    Personally, she’s really cool and I like her for that too. My professional dealings with her have always been positive and informative, hopefully for both of us. I have always had respect for her and the brave manner in which she faced even the worst of the crap the agency put upon her and the wolves. I always learned something from her whenever we spoke. I wish her well and hope that she enjoys what she’s doing now. Somehow, I think she probably enjoys the diminished pressure…

    • WM Says:

      Salle,

      Nicely stated. I found Carolyn very helpful in explaining Ken Cunningham’s report on MT, “Wolf-Ungulate Interactions….” report, including limitations and future research needs, when it first came out. Good person in a very tough job.
      _____________

      Jon,

      As usual, you don’t know squat.

  87. Peter Kiermeir Says:

    Where’s the valor in mountain lion hunt? http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/letters/article377712.ece
    Hmmm, good question……

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Peter –
      In your view, is “valor” a requirement in the hunting tradition?

      • Peter Kiermeir Says:

        I think it is anchored somewhere deep in the hunting tradition, when men had to face the mammoth with spears or the buffalo with the bow. I admit again that – thus basically not against hunting in general – I personally do not agree with this kind of hunting and that I´m more on the side of that lady asking the question.

      • william huard Says:

        Valor isn’t a requirement but fair chase ethic used to be. Unfortunately fair chase ethic falls on deaf ears or is conveniently ignored


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: