Wolves, Wyoming, and Where We Go From Here
By Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton, Hageman and Brighton, P.C.
On April 2, 2009, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued yet another “Final Rule” in the ongoing wolf “reintroduction” disaster. The latest FWS decision was issued in an obvious attempt to appease the environmentalists’ hand-picked Montana federal district court judge who attempted to erect a major roadblock to delisting by concluding that there was insufficient “genetic exchange” between wolf “subpopulations,” that Wyoming had “failed to commit” to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs, that there were alleged problems with the size of Wyoming’s trophy game area, and criticism of Wyoming’s steadfast decision to designate wolves as predators in part of the State (i.e., those areas of Wyoming that the FWS identified as “unsuitable” for wolf habitat). The FWS’s latest effort to foist the responsibility and expense of managing the non-native Canadian gray wolves onto the States is to “delist” such animals in Idaho and Montana, as well as parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah, and to retain them as a “non-essential experimental” population in Wyoming.
The only real consistency in the FWS’s actions related to the Canadian gray wolf population is its consistency in making a bad situation worse at every turn. The latest decision is no exception, and only confirms that the federal government’s foray into wildlife management will, in the long run, result in the annihilation of many of our elk and moose herds, will end hunting as we know it, will financially ruin many of our outfitters and guides, and will force livestock producers out of business.
While those in the “environmental” community may cheer the last three side effects mentioned above, the long-term legacy of the “wolf introduction experiment” will be anything but positive, and will include the subdivision of some of the most beautiful open spaces left in the Western United States, and the loss of wildlife corridors and habitat. We will be able to thank the federal government, organizations such as “Defenders of Wildlife” (aka “Defenders of Predators,” and “Predators R Us”), and the wolves for spawning 35 to 100-acre “ranchettes,” for increasing the fire load and danger (from a lack of grazing) in our already high-risk national forests and other federal lands, and for destroying the livelihoods of the very people who have actually dedicated themselves, their careers and their businesses to increasing, protecting, and supporting our wildlife populations.
Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph, 27 Jun 2009 [here]
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. …
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.
Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.
So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”. But… the bears are doing fine. [more]
Economic, Social and Cultural Impacts of Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones
Note: the following is a comment that was submitted yesterday to the US Forest Service regarding the Grizzly Bear and actions the Forest Service will be taking regarding road and land closures.
by Kevin Kimp, Idaho For Wildlife [here], June 22, 2009
To: United States Forest Service
From: Idaho For Wildlife
Re: Comments in regards to Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement — Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones
We are against any encumbrances to the people affected by the proposed DSEIS because of but not limited to the following reasons.
In talking with highly respected biologists, including Dr. Charles Kay of Utah State University, I have been told that more research is needed on sustainable bear numbers per BMU. It appears with the current land management practices implemented on our federal lands within these BMU’s there is not enough habitat to support the numbers that the USFWS is trying to obtain in the timeframe in which it is trying to obtain the numbers. Management practices to create habitat should include timber harvest and controlled burns thereby creating habitat that will grow vegetation to support an ungulate prey base which may include deer, elk, moose and wooland caribou, as well as vegetation to sustain and grow Grizzly Bear numbers.
We were informed at a KVRI (Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative) meeting, regarding Alternative E (which the USFS supports), that most units which effect Boundary County road closures, or obliterations would only occur behind locked gates and most of those roads were now brushed in and impassable. If the road is located behind a locked gate does a grizzly bear really care?
Linda McFaddan of the USFS stated “there have been several studies that prove restricting access to roads on National Forest Service Lands do not deal with the mortality issues grizzly bears face. Most of the mortalities take place on private lands, in Canada, or they’ve occurred within wilderness areas within huge blocks of forest that are far away from each other.”
Elk Population Plunges in Montana
For a long time wildlife experts outside the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks have been pointing out the effects of uncontrolled wolf predation on Northern Rocky Mountain elk herds.
This week the MFWP reached the same conclusion. Department biologists tracking elk numbers have noticed an alarming decline in the cow-calf ratio, a sign of imminent population crash.
As a result, the MFWP is reducing hunting permits, although over-hunting by humans is not the problem. The exploding wolf population is — wolves have been mass slaughtering elk at an unsustainable rate.
There is no plan to limit wolf numbers. The USFWS has twice attempted to delist wolves, and been rebuffed both times by federal judges pretending to be wolf biologists. A third attempt to delist wolves will reach litigation status this month. Despite a consensus among government, university, and private wolf experts that the Canadian gray wolf is fully “recovered” and not in any danger of extinction (it never was), the courts have stymied realistic wildlife management at every turn.
From the Missoulian Online:
FWP may lower number of elk permits in Bitterroot, Lower Clark Fork basin
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian, June 17, 2009 [here]
Elk numbers in some parts of western Montana are so low, state Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials may dial back the number of hunting permits they release this summer.
“Something of this magnitude does not happen every year,” said Mike Thompson, wildlife manager for the FWP Region 2 office in Missoula. “If you’d asked me about this two months ago, I’ve have said ‘no problem.’ But we’ve never seen such a low proportion of calves to cows across such a broad landscape as we did this year in the Bitterroot.”
In February (which was more than two months ago) we noted the crashing elk population in Montana [here]. Glad to see MFWP is catching the clue, finally.
Killer Wolf Tagged and Released
Wolves have been mass slaughtering lambs in NE Oregon. In April 23 lambs were wolf-killed in Keating Valley near Baker City [here]. Since then more sheep and calves have been killed by wolves.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife tracked and captured one of the killer wolves. Then they released it so it could kill some more.
NEWS RELEASE, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 4, 2009 [here]
LA GRANDE, Ore. – A joint effort by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife specialists resulted in the capture, radio-collaring, and release of a male wolf on Sunday morning, May 3, at approximately 7 a.m. PT. The event marks the first radio-collaring of a wolf in Oregon.
The wolf captured and radio-collared was an 87-pound male estimated to be about 2 years old. The track size and a second, smaller wolf seen at the capture site indicate that the wolf is one of two involved in several livestock depredations in the Keating Valley area of Baker County over the past few weeks.
The male wolf was trapped about 2.5 miles from the ranch house where this pair of wolves attacked a calf on April 17. Tissue samples were taken from the wolf for genetic analysis. …
Here is smiling ODFW wolf coordinator Russ Morgan fondling the killer wolf just prior to releasing it 2.5 miles away from the most recent mass slaughter site.
The killer wolf happily on its way to kill more sheep.
Photos courtesy your bloodthirsty government.
Wolf lawsuits grow
By JEFF GEARINO, Casper Star Tribune, April 9,2009 [here]
GREEN RIVER — The wolf lawsuits keep piling up.
A loose coalition of agriculture, conservation, sportsman, outfitter and other interests are the latest groups to announce their intent to file a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s final rule for removing wolves from the endangered species list.
The “Wolf Coalition” joins a slew of organizations — including the state of Wyoming, the Defenders of Wildlife and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition — that have filed 60-day notices of intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The groups are legally challenging the agency’s decision last week to leave the gray wolf in Wyoming on the endangered species list, but to delist wolves in neighboring Montana and Idaho.
Coalition attorney Harriet Hageman of Cheyenne said Thursday the group’s notice of intent alleges the USFWS violated the terms of the federal Endangered Species Act when it decided to proceed with wolf delisting.
The violations include the agency’s failure to follow and implement the federal wolf recovery plan that formed the basis for the original reintroduction of the non-native gray wolf into the greater Yellowstone area.
Hageman said the coalition is also challenging the agency’s decision to reject Wyoming’s wolf management plan, which classifies wolves as a trophy game animal in the greater Yellowstone area and as a predator in the rest of the state.
She said gray wolf populations in the region have not only met, but exceeded the recovery criteria set in the recovery plan and other federal guideline documents.
“The deal from the beginning was that the gray wolf would be introduced into and managed in the Yellowstone area,” Hageman said in a media release.
“The USFWS is now trying to force Wyoming to adopt a management plan that ensures that the wolves move throughout the state,” she said. “That is directly contrary to everything that the (agency) told us when they brought the wolves into Yellowstone.”
The USFWS has previously defined a viable recovered wolf population as including 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves per state.
However, the federal rules published last week would specify that Wyoming should maintain at least seven breeding pairs and 70 wolves outside Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.
Hageman said that in 2007 federal biologists estimated there were a minimum of 1,531 wolves within the Northern Rockies, including 127 breeding pairs.
She said by the end of 2007, there were also at least 171 wolves in 11 packs living inside Yellowstone National Park and 188 wolves in 25 packs living outside the park in Wyoming.
“Despite having exceeded their own goals by more than double, the USFWS refuses to allow Wyoming to manage the exploding gray wolf population,” Hageman said.
The coalition includes the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Wyoming, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, and the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association among others.
Note: the Notice of Intent to Sue is [here, 1.85 KB]
Wolves Endanger Livestock
Baker County Record Courier Editorial, April 29, 2009 [here]
Most local ranchers have known for several years that small numbers of gray wolves have been making their rounds through Baker County. There have been numerous sightings as well as tracks in several areas, but it took the killing of 23 lambs during two nights this month to finally confirm it. In the beginning, state and federal officials were reluctant to call the predator that killed Jacobs’ sheep anything other than a “large canine-like animal,” but now that the two wolves were caught on camera there is no denying it. There are wolves in eastern Oregon, and here in Baker County.
The more recent loss of a calf this week on the Moore ranch in Keating, may also be attributed to a wolf.
You can hardly blame the wolf; it has to kill to survive. And wolves have just as much right as any other wild animal to co-exist with humans and livestock. But the sad truth is, once they start feasting on domestic livestock, that is no longer a possibility if the livestock industry is to survive.
It has been documented that once wolves get a taste of domestic livestock they will continue to include them in their diet and others of a pack that did not have a taste for sheep and cattle before will follow suit. After all, chasing down a fenced-in lamb or calf is much easier than bringing down a predator savvy deer with miles to run in the wild. To an opportunistic wolf, it’s the difference between an all-you-can-eat buffet and hunting for food.
Unlike other predators, wolves don’t just kill what they need to survive, they kill for the sake of killing as evidenced by the dead, but intact, lambs they left strewn on the Jacob’s Ranch.
Sage Grouse Subject to Predation
In a remarkable about-face, researchers have determined that sage grouse are NOT limited by “loss of habitat.” It turns out that sage grouse populations are governed by PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS, just like all other animals.
Gob-smacked enviro-wackos are speechless. How could this be? You mean something is EATING the sage grouse? That sage grouse actually do much better when predators are controlled? That sage grouse populations are increasing on PRIVATE LAND where there are less predators due to human-based predator management?
Yes, Bunky, thems the facts.
Idaho State University researchers found that ravens and badgers eat grouse eggs [here], but not ground squirrels. The clever scientists set up webcams near grouse nests and WATCHED as wild predators gobbled pre-hatched chicks.
The researchers employed miniature, camouflaged infrared cameras to gather irrefutable evidence of what predators were eating sage grouse eggs, and to study a variety of sage grouse nesting behaviors. One finding of their research is that ground squirrels may have been unfairly linked to the predation of sage grouse eggs in nests. In addition, ravens have turned out to be a major predator of eggs in sage grouse nests.
… Some species of ground squirrels were suspected of being predators of eggs because of the remains of eggshells found in their scat and their occurrence near nesting sites. In addition, in eastern North America, there is definitive evidence of some species of ground squirrels preying. …
Film footage shot by Delehanty and Coates, however, repeatedly shows ground squirrels unable to successfully bite through eggs in nests. The eggs are simply too large for the squirrels. The ground squirrels were, however, seen consuming leftover eggshells, a valuable source of calcium, after the actual nest predator had destroyed the eggs. Thus, previous researchers who saw shells in ground squirrel scat and ground squirrels frequenting sage grouse nests were likely drawn to making incorrect assumptions.
Incorrect assumptions are rife in sage grouse studies. Most government-sponsored studies attempt to link (unsuccessfully) sage grouse decline with cattle grazing [here, for example]. However, much like ground squirrels, cattle do not eat grouse eggs, chicks, or full-grown birds either.
According to sue-happy enviro wackos, sage grouse populations are declining due to “loss of habitat from urban and energy development, wildfires, the spread of invasive weeds, global warming and livestock grazing” [here].
But that’s pure poppycock, junk science, and the braying of jackasses.
Real science, which is mainly concerned with reality, presents strong evidence that PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS have everything to do with population dynamics, and that “loss of habitat” is a pile of bird crap.
Radical political Marxist-anarchists associated with Barky Hussein Obombo have aborted good science in favor of war plans to steal and destroy millions of acres of private land in the West via absurd, a-scientific sage grouse lawsuits.
Remarkably, some gummit researchers have not gotten the memo and persist in doing good science. You can be sure, however, that our new Administration has nothing but the worst intentions for America, and will continue to use absolute junk science to advance their anti-American, pro-Marxist agenda.
2008 Idaho Wolf Map
The just released map of wolves in Idaho (2008) is available for downloading [here, 1.56 MB]. The full title:
2008 Wolf Activity Map: Documented, Suspected and Reported 2008 Estimated Locations
Prepared by Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the National Park Service
Thanks and a tip of the fur cap to Steve Alder, Chairman of Idaho For Wildlife [here and sidebar].
Lawsuits over wolf hunting filed in Mont., Wyo
By MATTHEW BROWN and BEN NEARY, Associated Press Writers, June 2, 2009 [here]
A pair of federal judges will decide which states in the Northern Rockies have enough gray wolves to allow public hunting, as the bitter debate over the region’s wolves heads to courts in Wyoming and Montana.
Environmentalists filed a lawsuit in Missoula on Tuesday seeking to restore protections for more than 1,300 wolves in Montana and Idaho. The Obama administration in April upheld a Bush-era decision to take wolves off the endangered species list in those two states.
The lawsuit could block regulated wolf hunts slated to begin this fall and scuttle a plan to remove all the predators from part of north central Idaho.
Gray wolves remain on the endangered species list in Wyoming, but in another lawsuit, Wyoming attorney General Bruce Salzburg on Tuesday asked a federal judge in Cheyenne to clear the way for hunts in his state. Salzburg rejected claims by federal officials that local laws were too weak to protect Wyoming’s 300 wolves.
Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, after they had been wiped out across the lower 48 states in the early 20th century by hunting and government-sponsored poisoning. Following an intensive reintroduction program, there are now an estimated 1,645 wolves in the Northern Rockies, not including this year’s pups.
Grizzly Bait and Switch Proposed
by RRS
Just some thoughts I wanted to pass along on a story I saw in a local paper. Evidently the USFS is looking for excuses to shut people out of our public forests. The latest game: lock out the public to allegedly save a growing population of not-really-endangered grizzly bears.
Here’s the article:
by Becky Kramer, Spokesman Review, May 5, 2009 [here]
Protecting grizzly bears across a 4,560-square-mile swath of the Selkirk and Cabinet mountains will require closing hundreds of miles of backcountry roads used by hunters and huckleberry pickers, the Forest Service says.
Grizzlies need secure areas to avoid contact with people, according to a new agency report. Despite 2-inch claws and a fierce reputation – the grizzly’s Latin name is Ursus arctos horribilis, or “horrible northern bear” – bears are typically the losers during encounters with humans.
Since 1982, people have killed 87 grizzlies in two grizzly bear recovery zones in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak mountains of northeastern Washington, Idaho and Western Montana.
Seventy percent of the human-caused deaths occurred near roads. Poaching and mistaking a grizzly for a black bear were two frequent reasons grizzlies were shot and killed on Forest Service lands. Self-defense by hunters was also a factor, particularly during elk season.
“Grizzly bears kill relatively few people, yet every year, we hear about grizzly deaths in the Northern Rockies,” said Mike Petersen, executive director of the Spokane-based Lands Council. “These bear mortalities are taking place near roads.” …
My thoughts: I would like to see some numbers to go with these broad statements. How many bears were poached? Hit by vehicles? Killed in self defense? Mistaken by hunters? How are roads evil? If 87 bears were killed in the last 26 years that would be about 3.3 bears per year.
How many people have been killed by grizzly bears in the last 26 years? What’s the score? Who’s ahead?
The article continues:
Over the past decade, environmental groups brought a series of lawsuits against the Forest Service, arguing that the agency needed to do more to keep people and bears apart by restricting motorized access to prime habitat areas. The litigation triggered forest plan revisions in the Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai and Lolo national forests.
The plan is out in draft form. Public comments will be accepted through June 22.
Closing roads to protect habitat is controversial, particularly when it halts people’s ability to drive or ride an ATV to well-established huckleberry picking sites or hunting areas, said Karl Dekome, the Forest Service’s team leader. An earlier draft attracted more than 300 public comments.
“People have their favorite places out there that they like to use,” he said. “When you’re talking about closing that off, it can become emotional.” …
My thoughts: I can see how the comments will go. A few locals will get fired up and write letters attempting to protect their rights with perfectly logical and sound reasons. The common sense letters will be drowned out by the mass of identical “letters” from well funded organizations that promote a dehumanized wilderness concept backed by people that have no concept of what is beyond their steel and concrete world.
More from the article:
The Forest Service reviewed two alternatives. Grizzlies would benefit most from barricading up to 1,800 miles of Forest Service roads; erecting gates on up to another 490 miles of roads; and eliminating motorized use on 57 miles of trails, according to the agency.
Forest Service officials, however, prefer a less restrictive plan that gates or barricades about 325 miles of road, while reopening other roads for motorized travel. About 30 miles of trail would close to motorized use. “It tries to strike a balance, providing sufficient habitat recovery for grizzly bears, but recognizing there are other issues and needs,” Dekome said. …
My thoughts: This is how the FS now operates. They come up with an outrageous plan, then an alternative that isn’t quite as restrictive so they can look good by “compromising”. What they are really doing is depriving people of their rights and forcing illegally conceived de facto wilderness upon the people.
More from the article:
Recreational activities would be hard-hit under the more restrictive plan, he said. Driving access to more than 22 developed recreation sites would be eliminated. The day-use area at Roman Nose, a 7,221-foot peak in Boundary County, is on the list. So are six campgrounds, three boat ramps and three picnic areas in the Kootenai National Forest.
Some hiking trails would effectively double in length. Snowmobile trails would be affected, because trail maintenance would be restricted during the summer months, Dekome said.
The ability to drive to the Lunch Peak lookout rental near Sandpoint is curtailed under both alternatives. But recreational impacts are much less severe in the Forest Service’s preferred plan, Dekome said.
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, one of the groups that sued the Forest Service, questions whether the agency’s preferred alternative is scientifically sound. Opening roads for timber sales would be allowed, said Liz Sedler, who works for the alliance in Sandpoint. She also said the grizzlies need bigger, undisturbed areas than the preferred alternative creates. …
My thoughts: The mentality of locking it up and letting it burn is more detrimental to habitat than trying manage for a healthy forest. Locking out We the People is against our rights, and heavily discriminates against the poor and elderly. Its very selfish of these organizations to “save the wilderness” so they can be occasionally visited by the wealthy and fit.
Yellowstone Staff Remove Human-Habituated Gray Wolf
NPS News Release, May 19, 2009 [here]
A wolf that had become habituated to people and exhibited behaviors consistent with being conditioned to human food was euthanized this morning by Yellowstone National Park staff along Fountain Flat Drive.
The yearling male wolf from the Gibbon Meadow Pack was first sighted in the vicinity of Midway Geyser Basin in March 2009. In recent weeks, the wolf had been frequently observed in Biscuit Basin and the Old Faithful developed areas in close proximity to park visitors. There have been several incidents of unnatural behavior, including chasing bicyclists on at least three occasions, and one report involving a motorcyclist. The park has also received reports of the wolf approaching people, as well as cars, which can best be described as panhandling-behavior consistent with a food conditioned animal. The wolf’s repeat offenses clearly demonstrate a habituation to humans and human food, escalating the concern for human safety.
Yellowstone staff made attempts at hazing the wolf from the area, only to have the wolf return and repeat this behavior. Hazing techniques are meant to negatively condition an animal and may include cracker shells, bean bag rounds or rubber bullets; all non-injurious deterrents.
The decision to remove the wolf from Yellowstone was made in consultation with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. This is the first time such a management action has occurred since wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone in 1995-1996. Yellowstone National Park removed this wolf from the population in accordance with the park’s habituated wolf management plan. …
According to Doug Smith, Wolf Project Leader, “This wolf was clearly not behaving naturally, reducing our management options. …
The removal of this wolf is not considered to have a detrimental impact to the overall health and population of wild, free roaming wolves in Yellowstone. The wolf population in Yellowstone National Park is currently estimated at 124 animals in 12 packs. Pups that were born this year have not been counted and are not part of this estimate.
Wolf Reported in Downtown Lewiston, ID
This email was received Friday, May 29th.
I wanted to tell you, I was at [a youth league] baseball game Tuesdy night, and at about 7:30 PM just as the game was finishing up, a big dog came out of the tall weeds and brush at the east end of the park (Clearwater Baseball Park) in north Lewiston.
It moved like a coyote, but was too big. So I walked down there to check it out. I got within about 70 yards of it. It was sniffing around and being quite jumpy, but it was definitely a wolf! If I did not see it with my own eyes I wouldn’t believe it, but there is no doubt in my mind it was a wolf.
I called Idaho Fish and Game, and they sent someone out there the next day but could not find any evidence of the wolf. I have heard, though, that someone has a trail cam photo of a wolf in the canyon on Gun Club Road.
Thought you would be interested.
