Many years ago, we learned that some would “walk a mile for a Camel.” What will this bear do for a snack?
Officials say they are still investigating how the child was able to get into a non-public area of the zoo.
Source: Wolf euthanized at Oshkosh zoo after it bites child | FOX 11 Online | WLUK-TV
Ancient Wolf Genome Reveals an Early Divergence of Domestic Dog Ancestors and Admixture into High-Latitude Breeds: Current Biology
The closest living relative of domestic dogs is the gray wolf, Canis lupus , but the number of domestication events, as well as their antiquity and geographical origin, is highly contentious. While molecular estimates of the time of origin of the dog lineage are contingent on principally unknown mutation rates and generation times, the most recent genomic estimates of the divergence between wolves and dogs date to 11,000 to 16, 000 years ago. These estimates are in considerable discord with reported archaeological evidence of dog-like canids from before the Last Glacial Maximum, which date as far back as 36,000 years before present (BP). Furthermore, a recent study showed that gray wolves from as disparate locations as China, Israel, and Croatia were symmetrically related to modern-day dogs. This observation suggests that dogs were domesticated prior to the diversification of present-day gray wolf populations or that the wild ancestors of dogs are now extinct. The latter scenario would be consistent with an earlier finding of a morphologically distinct wolf population adapted to megafaunal prey in Late Pleistocene Beringia, as well as mitochondrial DNA evidence for a Holocene replacement of European gray wolves. One hypothesis could thus be that the wild ancestors of dogs were a genetically distinct wolf population that inhabited the Late Pleistocene steppe-tundra biome and that this population was subsequently replaced, possibly by a northward postglacial expansion of smaller-bodied wolves that gave rise to modern-day wolf diversity. To test this hypothesis, we sequenced a draft genome of a Late Pleistocene wolf from northern Siberia.
Sometimes it is quite easy to figure out the real agenda. Below is a link to a story of some people who attempted to set up a sheep ranch in Wyoming – like that’s some sort of terrible thing (maybe killing a few cops in Baltimore would be better?) – and wolves are systematically destroying the owner’s sheep herd.
In response, according to the article, Mike Jimenez, Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says, “The wolf population is doing just fine…” Obviously! And here reveals the perverted priorities our blinded society abides by; save the damned wolf and to hell with anyone looking to live in peace and make a living. We protect idiots who want to kill humans and to hell with decent, productive persons.
Sick! Absolutely sick behavior…and our tax dollars pay this guy to cherish wolves and allow people to suffer, while at the same time our tax dollars pay government heads to protect killers while innocents suffer.
Yup, that’s about the way it is. I’m looking for an out of planet experience. Anyone want to go?
In the evenings, Janet and Buol Heslin can sit on their back porch in Alta and watch wolves emerge from the nearby national forest. The couple has raised sheep for the last 10 years and the last seven on their farm in Wyoming, and they’ve had a few problems with wolves.
Watch the video 3-Year-Old Girl Attacked by Coyote While Walking With Parents in Irvine on Yahoo News . A 3-year-old girl was attacked by a coyote while walking with her parents in Silverado Park in Irvine on Friday evening. The incident occurred around 5:50 p.m. near the intersection of Equinox and Silverado in Irvine, according to Farrah Emami with the Irvine Police Department. Girl suffered superficial wounds, and was treated at a local hospital and released. Officials were still searching the neighborhood for the coyote. Kacey Montoya reports for the KTLA 5 News at 10 on Friday, May 22, 2015.
Source: 3-Year-Old Girl Attacked by Coyote While Walking With Parents in Irvine | Watch the video – Yahoo News
As Gov. Rick Perry might attest, this little piece fits nicely into a pocket, or held in your hand and does wonders in convincing one of those coyotes, that environmentalists say never bother humans, that it just made a big mistake coming after you.
In the June 2015 edition of Whitetail Journal, there’s an article about the affects coyotes are having on deer populations nationwide. Essentially the article is not very helpful to anyone wishing to know facts about predators and prey, their relationships, and all the things that effect those relationships. The article boldly states that, “The data shows…that [coyotes] don’t have major impacts on [deer] population levels.” That might be somewhat akin to saying that deep snows in Alaska don’t have major impacts on building snowmen in Florida.
It is impossible to draw conclusions, such as this, from a potpourri of studies from different regions under completely different circumstances, by agents seeking an outcome. While it might be useful to gain a basic understanding of how some coyotes, wolves, bobcats, etc. might act and react in their specific habitat, such actions do not necessarily trend into other zones by different predators, because everything is different and changes in ways not uniform across the entire nation.
Missing from the article was any discussion about how continued protection of predators, resulting in larger populations of the deer-killing varmints, would continue to negatively impact deer herds. Perhaps the author is a bit of a believer in “natural balance.” On the one hand the article states that, “…the impact of winter coyote predation is greater when deer are low, below five deer per square mile.” That is a fact. Possibly deer numbers were below 5 per square mile because coyotes reduced them to that level and kept them there. This is sometimes referred to as a “predator pit” – the result of Predator Mediated Competition. A predator pit occurs when there are more than one prey specie that predators can eat, otherwise, the coyote/wolf will move to another area where it can find prey. This will allow the prey species (deer) to somewhat recover before the next round of killing begins.
You will also read in this article that when deer populations are running as high as 55 deer per square mile, predator effects on deer seem low enough that managers can control the deer herd by limiting or increasing deer hunting permits. Is that acceptable?
But, don’t we all know this by now? If your favorite place to hunt has been or is overrun with predators resulting in 5 deer per square mile, then this is a problem at every level. Just because down in the Southeast, where there’s 50 or more deer per square mile, coyotes don’t seem to matter, this does little in understanding and taking the right positive steps to cure the problem.
Don’t forget! I’ve mentioned this often and will keep repeating it because it is proving to be quite a prophetic statement by Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary. He stated before the annual Southeast Deer Study Group in 1995, in reference to their complaints of too many deer, “Enjoy your problem while it lasts, because the coyote is coming. Once he’s here, you’ll miss your deer problems.”
The article states that predator control doesn’t work and one excuse given is because coyotes are transient – meaning that if they kill all their prey in one area, they will move to another area and eventually other, or the same, coyotes will return if prey begins to recover. This is nothing new. The author cites studies that prove in the first year after substantial numbers of coyotes were removed from one study area, deer numbers, in particular fawn recruitment, increased dramatically. Over the next two years the numbers didn’t grow so much. And this is what the conclusion that coyote control don’t work is based on? I would like to know what the author expected.
The author goes on to conclude that the only way coyote control – that is for the purpose of protecting and growing deer herds, can work is, “…keep at it all the time, month after month, year after year.”
Like the Geico commercial says, “Everybody knows that.” Don’t they? They should. Anybody that I have ever talked with, who has a good understanding of the need for predator control, knows that it must be an ongoing endeavor. Deer management must include predator control. Without it, the ONLY other option is loss of hunting opportunity and eventually loss of hunting altogether, when growing numbers of predators cause dwindling game populations to predator pit levels. Is that acceptable?
If not, then don’t settle for predator protection over hunting opportunity.
An additional note: Environmentalist are always trying to butter their bread on both side. They have, historically, repeated the mantra that hunters and trappers, using bounties, extirpated or nearly did so, wolves and coyotes. In the next breath, they will tell us that hunting, trapping and using bounties not only won’t have any effect on reducing coyote numbers but will cause the numbers to go up. Amazing brain power there at work.
What could possibly go wrong with such a waste of resources and money?
The state of Washington has hired an internationally known wildlife-conflict specialist to help defuse tensions over the state’s expanding wolf population. Francine Madden is the executive director of the Human Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, which also works in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Houston-based nonprofit tries to resolve conflicts that arise when protecting animals such as lions, leopards and elephants leads to clashes with local communities.
MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) | A black bear is dead after being shot by a St. Regis woman who says the animal was in her front yard when it charged.
Source: Woman Fatally Shoots Charging Bear in her Front Yard
Heber-Overgaard, AZ—On Tuesday April 7th, a couple who live in Section 31 went outside to walk their dog, a 2 ½ year old Kuvasz that weighs about 100 pounds. Just as they got out front, three wolves ran by within about 10 feet of them and then stopped on their corner. Two of the wolves “stared down” the couple and their dog while the third one disappeared.
“They were big,” the witness told me, who wishes to remain anonymous. “They must have weighed 120 pounds each. Their heads were really big-kind of reminded me of a Rottweiler with the blocky head. They were brownish-blackish-tan colored. We often have bears around here, but they don’t really scare me. I threw a rock at a bear last year when it was after our chickens and it ran off. But, these…they scared me.”
Editor’s Note: This report is mostly just utter nonsense and full of – oh what’s the politically correct word I’m looking for? Oh, heck, LIES. The quoted statement below shows why Canada lynx will never be recovered, as desired by the animal loving, job security-seekers. This guy admits that even though Canada lynx are protected, conditions do not and will not exist for lynx to recover. And yet, we keep on keeping on because it means lots of money and job security to those lying about how many lynx there are, etc.
I have it on pretty good authority that biologists appointed to count and work with Canada lynx were told to never, ever, under any conditions, say any state or region has more than 500 lynx. Note this statement: “Estimates from federal scientists put the number of Canada lynx in Maine at 500; that’s fewer than a state estimate of 750 to 1,000 lynx about five years ago.” It’s always no greater than 500…ever.
Here’s another point of contradiction. We are told that Canada lynx are at the southern most edge of their historic range and that global warming is causing the lynx to withdraw from the state and move north. And yet, we now read that lynx are moving south because that’s where they can find their favorite food – snowshoe hare. And this makes sense, because……?
“There’s potentially times when conditions might be just right that lynx can occur in Vermont and New Hampshire and in western Maine and Downeast Maine but probably not consistently,” said Mark McCullough, an endangered species biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Orono, Maine.