by HAILEY HILL Staff Writer | October 5, 2024 1:07 AM
This year’s deer hunting season will look a little different for North Idaho wild game processors after cases of chronic wasting disease were confirmed in the Bonners Ferry deer population.
CWD is a neurological disease found in deer, elk and moose that causes degeneration of the animal’s brain, resulting in emaciation, abnormal behavior, loss of bodily function and eventually death.
Woods Meat Processing in Sandpoint still plans to process wild game — however, the shop will not accept any carcasses from CWD zones, which are designated by Idaho Fish and Game. Additionally, a negative CWD test is required for harvested, boneless meat.
ADVERTISING
“If anybody tells you they’re not doing anything different, that’s not a good thing,” said Jody Russell, co-owner of Woods Meat Processing.
Mike Edgehouse, who operates a mobile meat processing business called Primal Edge Pursuits, believes working exclusively with wild game — and one animal at a time — is what will allow him to avoid potential for contamination.
“I think those who do both domestic and wild game are in a much tougher position,” Edgehouse said.
Such was the case for Mountain View Custom Meats, a Coeur d’Alene shop that stopped processing wild game meat two years ago when the first case of CWD was confirmed in Idaho.
Since the shop is located on private property, owner Kevin Trosclair explained, they did not want to risk CWD prions getting into the property’s groundwater and infecting nearby wildlife and livestock.
“We decided from a safety standpoint that we don’t want to have that in our shop,” Trosclair said.
Idaho Fish and Game has designated Units 14, 18 and a portion of unit 1, the portion of Boundary County east of the Selkirk Mountains crest, as CWD Management Zones as of Oct. 1. Fish and Game prohibits the transport of whole deer, elk or moose carcasses out of these zones.
Mandatory sampling is required for all mule deer and white-tailed deer harvested in units 14, 18, 23, 24, 32A and the same portion of unit 1, according to IFG 2024 CWD Hunting Rules.
Any-weapon hunting for white-tailed deer opens Oct. 10.
Instagram user Patrick Montgomery recently shared additional details related to the killing of a mountain lion in Colorado, with some of this information said to address what took place from the side of the person who killed the animal. Montgomery’s post about the situation is accompanied by numerous photos of the big cat (warning: graphic in nature), along with the shovel presumably used to kill the animal.
In case you missed initial reporting on the situation, Colorado Parks and Wildlife detailed how a man was at a campground west of Cañon City on September 26 when a mountain lion was being abnormally aggressive toward the man and his dog. As the mountain lion approached the pair and shortened the distance to about 10 feet, wildlife officials say the man’s dog engaged the animal, with the man then striking the lion with a shovel and killing it. Officials noted that the preliminary investigation pointed to justified self-defense.
The post from Montgomery claims to provide additional detail on the matter, noting that the man involved was a friend of a friend who is a raft guide living in a camper near the Royal Gorge. The post explains that the incident took place around midnight, with the lion said to have targeted the man’s husky. The guide reportedly grabbed the shovel and whacked the big cat to get it to leave, but when it returned, he struck it again, ultimately killing the animal in order to protect himself and his dog.
While officials aren’t considering this to be a mountain lion ‘attack’ on a human because the man involved wasn’t injured and didn’t come in direct contact with the mountain lion, the additional information related to the encounter is enough to send chills down any outdoor recreator’s spine. Mountain lions are rarely seen and aggressive behavior toward humans is even more rare, but this situation goes to show that dangerous encounters are still a very real possibility.
This incident took place weeks before Coloradans are set to vote on whether or not the hunting of mountain lions (and other wild cats) should be allowed in Colorado, with hunting often considered to be a key method of population management.
The ballot item that will be voted on is Initiative 127, with proponents for the ban claiming that hunting causes animals unjust pain and trauma, also positing that mountain lion (and bobcat) populations are able to naturally self-regulate without a need for involvement in Colorado’s hunting program. It’s also worth noting that those who support this ban would still be agreeing that self-defense killings are justified.
Meanwhile, those who oppose the initiative argue that the measure would restrict the abilities of Colorado Parks and Wildlife to use their expertise to make science-based decisions related to the management of the local mountain lion population, also noting that the current approach toward management of the species seems to be working as the state’s mountain lion population is quite healthy. Additionally, those against proposition 127 have noted that increased mountain lion numbers could mean more frequent damages sustained by ranchers due to depredation of livestock, with these ranchers also losing the ability to seek reimbursement for damages should the initiative pass.
This ballot initiative comes a few years after wolf reintroduction was narrowly approved by Colorado voters via a similar method. That approval has since been questioned countless times by those who opposed the measure with the term ‘ballot box biology’ often linked to the program – this term being a reference to voters making decisions related to the management of the state’s wildlife instead of allowing those decisions to be made by wildlife experts hired by the state.
As it relates to this recent Cañon City encounter, some of those leaving comments about the situation online have expressed concern that this type of encounter could happen more frequently if the local mountain lion population is left unchecked. Additionally, concern has been expressed related to what an increased mountain lion population could mean for Colorado’s prey animals, such as deer.
Those wondering whether or not hunting may have an impact on Colorado’s mountain lion numbers may want to consider the impact of a mountain lion hunting ban that was put in place in California, where lions haven’t been hunted since 1972, with cougars later classified as a ‘non-game’ species in 1990 (it’s a different state with different factors, but perhaps the most comparable example of a similar situation in the US). In a study related to the population of California’s mountain lions that spanned years of 1906 to 2018, the population was estimated to be at its highest around the start of the 1900s, dipping to a low around the time that the mountain lion hunting ban was enacted. Since the ban, the population has continued to grow, approaching levels much closer to those seen 100 years ago by 2018 (chart seen on page 75 of this document). This presumably points to a ban on hunting having the potential to mean a larger mountain lion population.
And then there’s the question of what a larger mountain lion population might mean for local ungulates.
As it currently stands, around 500 mountain lions are killed via hunting each year in Colorado. With adult mountain lions killing approximately one deer per week for consumption, the absence of 500 cats means that roughly 26,000 additional deer have a chance to escape death (napkin math, I know). It’s estimated that there are around 400,000 to 450,000 deer statewide, with this 26,000 number representing about five to seven percent of that population. It’s also worth noting that the average lifespan of a mountain lion in the wild is about eight to 13 years, thus multiple years of survival in the absence of death via hunting would need to be taken into account if the 500 mountain lions killed by Colorado hunters each year were to keep predating on ungulates for years to come. There’s debate over whether or not this additional predation would impact the stability of the deer population or help qualm concerns related to chronic wasting disease, which plagues local cervids and thrives when high population density is present.
While Initiative 127 is heavily tied to hunting, a large part of the proposal also seems to boil down to whether or not one believes that wildlife experts should have a hand in the population management of big cat species.
Full details related to this initiative can be found here. Scroll down to page 39.
A weekly newsletter featuring the biggest ideas from the smartest people
Fields marked with an * are required
Crows and ravens, which belong to the corvid family, are known for their high intelligence, playful natures, and strong personalities. They hold grudges against each other, do basic statistics, perform acrobatics, and even host funerals for deceased family members. But we keep learning new things about the savvy of these birds, and how widespread that savvy is among the corvid family.
Featured VideosThe video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard
Earlier this year, a team of researchers from Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia and the University of Bristol found that a species of crow called the hooded crow—which has a gray bust and black tail and head feathers, making it look like it is wearing a “hood”—is able to manage a mental feat we once thought was unique to humans: to memorize the shape and size of an object after it is taken away—in this case a small piece of colored paper—and to reproduce one like it.
This kind of feat, according to animal behavior researchers, requires the ability to form “mental templates.”Essentially, a mental template is an image in the mind of what a particular object looks like, even when that object is not present. Mental templates allow animals to create tools, which can be used to get food or make a stronger nest, both ultimately leading to a better chance of survival. They might also make it possible for individuals to learn about tool making from other members of their species—and to pass along improvements in tool making over time, often called “cumulative culture,” which so far seems rare among non-human animals.
We have been looking for evidence that different corvid and other bird species can create mental templates since at least 2002. That year, researchers published findings showing that Betty, a captive New Caledonian crow, was able to spontaneously bend a piece of wire to create a hook that she could use to grab a hard-to-reach treat. Betty had successfully used a pre-made hook to obtain the treat in earlier trials but in follow-up tasks didn’t seem to fully understand how hooks work. The researchers decided she must have formed a mental template of the hook, which she then reproduced. So far, researchers have found that Goffin cockatoos, a kind of parrot, can also create tools spontaneously, which could indicate similar mental agility.
But the new hooded crow findings suggest that the ability to learn this way could be more widespread than we thought, says Sarah Jelbert, a comparative psychologist who studies animal behavior at the University of Bristol and is one of the authors of the study. Creating and using mental templates might be a skill that evolved in the ancestor of all corvids, the “Corvida” branch of songbirds, or perhaps it is even shared more broadly across the animal kingdom, she says.
For their study, Jelbert and her colleagues first trained three hooded crows—Glaz (15 years old), Rodya (4 years old), and Joe (3 years old)—to recognize pieces of paper of different sizes and colors. To do this, they exposed the birds to “template” pieces of paper in different colors and sizes for several minutes before removing them—and then rewarded the birds for dropping scraps that matched these templates into a small slit.
The crows were next given the opportunity to manufacture versions of these objects in exchange for a reward. The researchers found that all three crows manufactured objects that matched the original template object they had been rewarded for in both color and size—even though the treats in this second stage of the experiment were awarded at random. The researchers also observed that Glaz, the oldest of the three hooded crows, seemed to be the most proficient at making scraps that looked like the ones the bird was trained on. This finding suggested to them that mental templates may be linked to experience garnered with age.
“Unlike humans, who regularly copy each other’s behavior … we don’t have much evidence that crows will watch each other and deliberately copy what another crow is doing,” Jelbert says. However, they will steal each other’s tools—in particular, juvenile crows often steal their parents’ tools when they are young. So it’s possible that young crows learn how to make different types of tools from experience stealing their parent’s tools, using them, remembering what these tools look like, and then trying to create something similar, Jelbert says.
What qualifies as a mental template, and how flexible these templates are, seems to be up for some debate. Research suggests birdsong and mating practices may rely on certain kinds of mental templates, which can backfire if a bird memorizes behavior from the wrong species. “For example, if a song sparrow gets imprinted on the song of a swamp sparrow and sings a song from a different species rather than its own, it will have difficulty finding mating partners,” explains Andreas Nieder, a professor of animal psychology at the University of Tübingen and a lead researcher on corvid neuroscience, who was not involved in this study. “Similarly, if one finch species gets sexually imprinted on another, it may show courtship displays to the wrong species in adulthood.”
Nieder says this kind of imprinting can become fixed in the bird’s brain, and is not changeable even in new environments. “In this case, templates may no longer represent intelligence but rather the opposite,” he adds. Researchers have not yet determined whether mental templates related to tool making remain flexible, though there is some evidence in New Caledonian crows that they may evolve.
For biologists and comparative psychologists, understanding the ways corvids use mental templates can help to illuminate not just the nature of bird intelligence, but of intelligence across the animal kingdom and evolutionary time.
The Mindset of Colorado’s Wolf Snafu Needs a Pro-Wolf Reset
To date, this project cannot be called any sort of success.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s unnecessary and uncompassionate dismantling of a Colorado pack of wolves sets a dire precedent.
Current management practices disregard their rich and deep emotional lives and physical and psychological wellbeing.
CPW has not uttered one compassionate word about what the deeply sentient wolves were feeling during their trap and relocate debacle during which the father wolf died and his mate and their four children were placed in captivity.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recently dismantled the Copper Creek pack—a family of wolves consisting of the father, mother, and their four children—because they denned on the land of a rancher who did little to nothing to deter them.1 These parents were the first breeding pair in the state and they and their children represent the DNA of Colorado’s future wolves. Doing their best to survive, they discovered the rancher’s food animals were an easy option—basically “room service”—compared to hunting wild prey.
The problems presented here aren’t going to be isolated incidents, nor can we keep the public in the dark and hope to ignore them. Nor should we ignore what the wolves themselves are feeling as they are mistreated by humans responsible for their wellbeing.
The Current and Ever-Changing State of Affairs
“This was—and continues to be—a complex, tragic and ultimately avoidable situation, and it’s essential that we all examine the facts and the context to prevent any similar fate for other wolves in the future.”—Kitty Block, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, see: The tragic fate of Colorado’s Copper Creek wolf pack
Months of silence from the agency in charge and a hostile and oftentimes pessimistic media created perfect conditions for dark-age thinking and fearmongering. It’s time the voters of Colorado learn the truth about the wolves they voted to bring home. No less will do than a full accounting of the scientific and ethical missteps that led to an entirely avoidable and completely unforgivable assault on the lives of these amazing, sentient beings.
After hearing from countless people about this entirely avoidable and unforgivable assault on the lives of these amazing sentient beings, I wanted to do my part in getting information to the public.
Simply put, CPW’s “trap and relocate operation” fails in three ways. In the grand scheme of things, it represents a failure by its very nature: uprooting and traumatizing the lives of the pack members, just for being wolves.
1. Scientific grounds: Science shows that interfering in the lives of these animals was most likely going to have serious negative consequences, and it did—the father died after being captured and the rest of his family are being held in captivity, the details of which remain undisclosed to the public. Even if some or all of this captive pack are released at a later date, experts fear it likely won’t be an easy transition back to the wild in what is proving to be a wolf-unfriendly state.
Of course, there is hope that those of us in the scientific community are wrong. But one thing is certain: had CPW used the “best available science,” it would not have engaged with or captured the wolves at all, instead allowing them time to adapt to their new home, with nearby ranchers doing their part to employ sensible nonlethal deterrence measures, If only, then this founding group of wolves would have been celebrated rather than scorned and ill-treated.
Interfering in the lives of this family group also would have been discouraged had those responsible for the wellbeing of the wolves paid any attention to what scientific research has shown us about the emotional lives of these sentient beings—what they need to thrive among themselves and in the presence of humans with whom they are trying to cohabit.
Among wolf advocates, the trap and relocation was also a failure for the precedent it set and for how it ignored what the wolves were feeling.
2.Ethicalgrounds: Wolves are sentient beings, not merely objects to be moved here and there as if they aren’t impacted by what happens to them. Science shows they are, of course, extremely sensitive to changes in their social lives and where they live. They were once wild in Oregon and once wild in Colorado, and now they’ve lost their father and are being held in captivity with an uncertain fate. Surely their being trapped and relocated and the loss of their father and mate wreaks havoc with how they feel and deeply compromises their individual wellbeing.
3. Commonsense: It was never the intent of anti-wolf ranchers to go along with the reintroduction, regardless of how often the government stepped in to offer assistance and how much it offered to pay in compensation. Reintroduction may have passed by a majority of Colorado voters, but in meeting the demands of a vocal minority, CPW has rewarded bad behavior. Within days of removing the Copper Creek pack, the same ranchers who demanded their removal began complaining that relocation wasn’t enough. And now there is a move to keep the names of complaining ranchers who ask for compensation from going public.
Would you do it to your dog? Another element of commonsense rests on the fact that dogs share a common wolf ancestor and have wolf genes and wolf-like neural pathways in their brains. Commonsense and science mandate that if dogs have rich and deep emotional lives which of course they do, so too do wolves. That is an undebatable scientific fact. I’ve known a few dogs in my life named Cody, Ninja, Rascal, Sadie, and Dolly and I am sure that they and others would have suffered greatly by being treated like their wild relatives were treated. If you wouldn’t do it or allow it to be done to a dog, why would you do it or allow it to be done to a wolf?
CPW also ignore the possibility that the male died after being caught in a leg-hold trap and held in a cage because he was highly stressed and already was suffering from an injured leg.
There is no doubt that each member of this family group has suffered greatly by being trapped and moved and by having their family uncompassionately dismantled by CPW.
The treatment of the wolves requires a new mindset that incorporates their point of view
We now know that there is a plan to bring in around 15 more Canadian wolves in a few months. We must not lose sight of the fact that all this easily avoidable turmoil was the result of only two wolves mating to form a pack of six individuals. Is it not unreasonable to wonder how ranchers will better prepare to meet the moment when Colorado’s wolf population doubles?
All signs point to trouble ahead as wolves try to settle into their new homes, begin competing with one another and other predators, and hopefully breed. Without a mandate for non-lethal management and the use of all available deterrents, the wolves will surely face calls for more trap and relocate operations, or worse. We can’t just move the “problem” around, as it begets more chaos. Surely, if there is a repeat of what has happened to the original group, the emotional lives of other wolves will be severely compromised.
“…wolvesmovequickly, spreading out in search of food, mates and territory. Next February, more of the newly arrived wolves might pair up and breed, forming new packs. More wolves will likely mean more wolf-human interactions — and more opportunities for both state wildlife officials and ranchers to keep what happened to Middle Park’s livestock and the Copper Creek Pack from happening again.”
The physical and emotional wellbeing of every individual wolf matters
If wolves are going to be punished and made an example of for finding the wrong food source, why bring in more? It’s a double-cross that cannot be defended scientifically, ethically, or using a healthy dose of commonsense.
People who want to see and hear (and possibly smell) wolves on Colorado’s landscapes want live, wild wolves who live wild wolf-appropriate lives, not severed family units, punished for doing things that wolves evolved to do.
The emotional lives and physical and psychological wellbeing of every single individual matters, and none are disposable simply for expressing their lupine—wolf-like—ways of being. One of the basic tenets of the ever-growing field of compassionate conservation is that the life of every individual matters because they are alive. Their inherent or intrinsic value is what counts, not their instrumental value that focuses on what they can do for us.
What the wolves think and feel matters and must be factored into how we choose to interfere in their lives. If you are outraged by how the wolves were treated you’re right on the mark.
There are many lessons to be learned for how we choose to interact with our wild neighbors of any species. Respecting their rich and deep emotional lives is good for them and good for us and must be factored in to how humans choose to interfere in the lives of Colorado’s wolves and other animals.
The famed and late mountain lion known as P-22 likely developed mange as a result of rat poisoning. A new California law bans the use of anticoagulant rat poisons, with some limited exceptions.
A 2023 California Department of Fish and Wildlife report found that roughly 88% of raptors and 90% of pumas tested were exposed to the poisons.
The law allows the poisons to be used in agricultural settings and public health emergencies.
California has become the first state in the nation to restrict use of all blood-thinning rat poisons due to their unintended effect on mountain lions, birds of prey and other animals.
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a bill that expands an existing moratorium to all anticoagulant rodenticides, with only limited exceptions. The poisons prevent an animal’s blood from clotting and cause it to die from internal bleeding. When an unsuspecting mountain lion or owl gobbles a dead or sick rat — or another animal that ate a tainted rat — the toxic substance can be passed on.
Wildlife advocates hailed the new law — set to go into effect Jan. 1 — as an important step toward protecting non-target animals. However, agricultural and pest-control groups derided the measure as a potential public health issue that sidestepped the state’s regulatory process.
“I’m so proud that California is leading the way in protecting wildlife from these harmful and unnecessary poisons,” said J.P. Rose, urban wildlands policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity, which sponsored AB 2552. “I think we can all agree that unintentionally poisoning native wildlife is wrong.”
Advertisement
A 2023 California Department of Fish and Wildlife report found that roughly 88% of raptors and 90% of pumas tested had been exposed to the poisons. Birds of prey — and American kestrels in particular — have been significantly harmed by chlorophacinone, one of two poisons targeted in the law, according to Lisa Owens Viani, director of Raptors Are the Solution, a co-sponsor of the bill.
Megan J. Provost, president of Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, a trade association for the specialty pesticide and fertilizer industry, which opposed the bill, pointed to its potential harm to humans.
“Effective rodenticide products are necessary for protecting the health and safety of people, structures and businesses — including those responsible for food safety — from the diseases and property damage caused by rats and other harmful rodents,” Provost said in a statement. The new law “unfortunately removes products from the pest control toolbox that are important for managing rodent infestations, leaving fewer products for effective immediate and long-term control and for managing resistance in rodents.”
She said California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation has wide latitude to evaluate pesticides for safety “so pesticide-specific legislation … that supersedes this process was unnecessary.”
The law allows the poisons to be used in agricultural settings and public health emergencies.
Owens Viani said legislation and other efforts were necessary because state pesticide regulators were unwilling to act on their own.
“We’re ahead of the rest of the country with these regulations, but it hasn’t been because DPR has been a willing partner,” Owens Viani said. “We’ve had to force them every step of the way.”
A spokesperson for the agency said it “has been actively evaluating risks” related to the rodenticides since 2014.
“Evaluation has included both monitoring for impacts through a partnership with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and initiating formal reevaluation to inform future actions to mitigate risks to wildlife,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
Owens Viani said her organization has worked for about a decade on passing legislation, including two previous laws that banned other blood-thinning rat poisons. A suit her nonprofit filed against the state agency is ongoing.
The early seeds of Owens Viani’s work on the issue began around 2011, when a neighbor ran over to tell her that Cooper’s hawk fledglings had drowned in his kiddie pool. At the time, she was studying raptors at the Golden Gate Raptor Observatory and had a hunch rat poison was involved. Tests confirmed it.
“It kept happening in my neighborhood, like people kept finding more dead hawks,” she said. They weren’t eating the bait; they were eating rats. “I knew that if people were using poison in my eco-friendly neighborhood in Berkeley, it was probably a problem everywhere. And so that’s when I decided to found my nonprofit and try to educate more people about the problem.”
Advertisement
The latest legislation, authored by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), tightly restricts the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin, which are known as first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. A law signed in 2020 put a moratorium on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. And last year the only other first-generation poison was added through a separate law.
The older first-generation version is slower-acting, requiring the rat to feed on the poison several times before it dies. The second-generation version is more potent, earning the moniker “one-feeding kills.”
Other states are working on similar efforts, but Owens Viani said only California has enacted a moratorium. British Columbia has placed a permanent moratorium on second-generation poisons, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency removed those types of poison from consumer shelves, she said.
The ban will remain in place until the state Department of Pesticide Regulation reevaluates the poisons and comes up with restrictions that meet certain criteria to protect wildlife.
The law also creates civil penalties. Anyone who sells or uses the poisons in violation of the law is subject to a fine of up to $25,000 per day for each violation.
Any money collected from violations will go to the Department of Pesticide Regulation to cover its costs in administering and enforcing the rules, and potentially other activities.
Advertisement
The department estimated the law would create a one-time cost of $258,000 and an ongoing annual cost of $193,000 to support a position “to handle anticipated increases in follow-ups and complaints associated with investigating sales and restricted materials,” according to a government analysis of the bill.
The analysis anticipates revenue loss of an unknown amount to the department, as well as to the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee.
The agency said it is committed to “a timely completion of its reevaluations.” Another bill signed into law this year requires that the agency share a timeline and status of all reevaluation and mitigation by the end of the year.
“The reevaluations underway include an assessment of cumulative impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides,” including first-generation varieties, the agency said in a statement, adding that it “will continue its ongoing work to address unintended wildlife exposure from first-generation and second-generation rodenticides while still retaining tools to protect public health, agriculture, critical infrastructure and the environment.”
Wildlife advocates said they compromised on certain elements of the bill as it wound through the Legislature and encountered opposition.
For example, a previous version of the bill allowed members of the public to sue bad actors for breaching the law.
Advertisement
An L.A. Times editorial from earlier this year pitched this as a powerful element of the legislation, which “could help curb the use of banned rodenticides by empowering all Californians to become enforcers.”
However, the California Chamber of Commerce called it “an expansive new private right of action that threatened businesses and created incentives for frivolous lawsuits,” and removed its opposition once the provision went away.
Owens Viani said proponents had also hoped to create buffer zones around agricultural areas, where birds of prey forage and which are part of habitat ranges for mountain lions, coyotes and other animals.
But there were other wins. Rose pointed out what he described as “exciting language … around the sentience of animals.”
The law text notes that animals “are able to subjectively feel and perceive the world around them” and that the “Legislature has an interest in ensuring that human activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes pain, stress, fear and suffering for animals and reflects their intrinsic value.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bipartisan bill Friday making it a crime to farm octopuses for human consumption in California.
The new law makes it illegal to raise and breed octopuses in state waters or in aquaculture tanks based on land within the state. It also prevents business owners and operators from knowingly participating in the sale of an octopus — regardless of its provenance — that has been raised to be eaten by people.
The text of the law recognizes that octopuses are “highly intelligent, curious, problem-solving animals” that are conscious, sentient and experience “pain, stress, and fear, as well as pleasure, equanimity, and social bonds.” It goes on to note that in research studies, these eight-legged marine invertebrates have demonstrated long-term memory as well as the ability to recognize individual people.
In one experiment, eight giant Pacific octopuses were introduced to two people over a two-week period at the Seattle Aquarium. One of them always approached with food in hand, which they gave to the octopuses. The other carried a bristly stick, with which they used to scratch the cephalopods’ sensitive skin.
At the end of two weeks, the octopuses’ responses to the two people were significantly different. When the stick-carrier approached, the animals would move away and line up their water jets toward the offender so they could make a quick get-away if necessary. But when feeder came calling, they ambled up to the side of the tank and turned their jets away.
Proponents of the new law said it positions California as a leader in humane aquaculture. They point to a growing body of research that shows raising octopuses for food is cruel, inefficient and detrimental to the environment.
California is now the second state — after Washington — to prohibit octopus farming. Similar legislation has also been introduced in the U.S. Senate and in Hawaii.
“We know that what happens in California has an impact on what happens federally,” Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, said when the bill cleared the legislature. “Americans want to keep octopuses wild.”
Pune: In a rare occurrence, four leopards have been captured in a span of just 18 days in the Bighevasti-Katwanvasti area in Ambegaon taluka. The latest capture took place early on Thursday (August 29), when a one-and-a-half-year-old leopard cub was trapped in a cage set by the Forest Department.
Shortly after the cub’s capture, a female leopard tried to free it by repeatedly ramming the cage, prompting the Forest Department to issue a safety alert to residents.
The first leopard was captured on August 12, followed by a second, a one-year-old male, on August 18, and a third on August 25. The latest capture is the fourth in this series.
The frequency of these incidents has caused alarm among local residents, who are now worried about the continuing presence of leopards in the area.
Farmers in the area, led by Maruti Karbhari Bhor, had requested the Forest Department to set additional traps due to frequent leopard sightings.
Following the recent capture, Bhor reported witnessing a female leopard growling and hitting the cage in an attempt to rescue the trapped cub. The rescue team from the Forest Department, along with local villagers and officials, managed to take the leopard cub into custody.
The situation has heightened concerns among locals after a leopard killed two sheep belonging to a farmer, Santosh Patilbuwa Lokhande, late Sunday night. This incident further indicates that leopards remain active in the vicinity, leading to growing fears among residents.
Safety Alert for Residents
The Forest Department has advised residents of Bighevasti-Katwanvasti to exercise caution, especially after a female leopard showed aggressive behavior by ramming into the cage where the cub was trapped.
Given the possibility of further aggression, authorities are considering setting up more traps and have requested residents to remain alert.
Pune: The Forest Department arrested five individuals involved in the illegal hunting and transport of wild boar meat near Talegaon Dabhade, on the old Pune-Mumbai highway.
The incident unfolded when the Vadgaon Maval Forest Department received a tip-off about a group transporting wild boar meat in a car. Acting swiftly, the department conducted a raid and apprehended the suspects.
The team also seized a substantial quantity of wild boar meat along with the vehicle, with the total value of the confiscated items amounting to approximately six lakh rupees.
The arrested individuals have been identified as Maruti Shitole and Satyawan Bhoir, both hailing from Kasarsai in Mulshi, and Datta Waghmare, Sanjay Waghmare, and Sitaram Jadhav, all residents of Kade Maval.
According to the Forest Department, the accused were caught near New English School on the old Pune-Mumbai highway, where they were attempting to transport the illegally obtained meat.
The Vadgaon Maval Forest Department quickly acted on the intelligence and set up a raid that led to the successful capture of the suspects. The operation was led by Range Forest Officer S.D. Vark, with additional support from Circle Forest Officer Mallinath Hiremth and a team of forest guards.
The raid team included Forest Guards Devle, Daya Dome, Parmeshwar Kasule, Yogesh Kokate, SK More, Krishna Dethe, and Deepak Ubale, along with Forest Attendant Jambhulkar.
Under the supervision of Chief Conservator of Forests N.R. Praveen, Deputy Conservator of Forests Mahadev Mohite, and Assistant Conservator of Forests Atul Jain, the team managed to prevent further transportation of the meat.
Outside the Nebraska State Fair on Friday, representatives of PETA will park a vehicle that’s meant to portray chickens crammed into crates on their way to slaughter.
PETA says the vehicle, called Hell on Wheels, is its “life-size, hyper-realistic chicken transport truck,” which is covered with images of chickens in crates.
Fair attendees will also be in for an earful. Passersby will be bombarded “with actual recorded sounds of the birds’ cries along with a subliminal message every 10 seconds suggesting that people go vegan,” says a PETA news release.
PETA’s chicken truck will blast the recorded cries of dying birds.COURTESY PETA
“Behind every hot wing or bucket of fried chicken is a once-living, sensitive individual who was crammed onto a truck for a terrifying, miserable journey to their death,” PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman says in a statement. “PETA’s ‘Hell on Wheels’ truck is an appeal to anyone who eats chicken to remember that the meat industry is cruel to birds and hazardous to human health and the only kind meal is a vegan one.”
PETA notes that “the vexatious vehicle’s arrival comes as a bird flu outbreak continues to spread across the U.S., infecting about 170 herds of cows in the dairy industry and resulting in the killing of nearly 18 million chickens nationwide since the beginning of the year.”
PETA, whose motto reads in part that “animals are not ours to eat,” points out that “Every Animal Is Someone” and offers free Empathy Kits for people who “need a lesson in kindness.”
A man shot and killed a gray wolf Saturday morning while he and two others were waterfowl hunting near St. Germain. Two wolves reportedly approached as close as five yards to their blind.
The Department of Natural Resources is investigating an incident in which a man shot and killed a gray wolf Saturday as he and two others were waterfowl hunting on public land near St. Germain.
Chase Melton, 19, of Sugar Camp, said about 6:15 a.m. Saturday two wolves approached the hunters’ blind.
Melton was accompanied by hunters aged 14 and 13. Saturday was opening day of the 2024 Wisconsin duck hunting season in the north zone.
He initially attempted to scare the wolves off, Melton said in an interview with WJFW in Rhinelander.
“I tried making some noise, I was clapping, stomping, breaking some sticks, whatever,” Melton said.
One of the wolves got as close as 5 yards to the hunters, Melton said. “I probably could have touched it with my hand, that was extremely scary,” Melton said. “So now, we’re really panicking. We’re like alright, we’re surrounded and we have a wolf charging us right now.”
Melton said he picked up his shotgun and when one of the wolves kept coming he shot it in the head; he estimated the animal was 8 to 10 yards away.
A 2017 incident on public land in Adams County, in which a man fired a handgun at and reportedly hit a wolf that approached him, did not qualify as a wolf attack, the DNR concluded.
An investigation was not able to find the wolf; the man was not cited.
A December 2023 incident in which an Ashland County man shot and killed a wolf in his yard remains under investigation. The man reportedly claimed the wolf threatened his safety.
There have been two verified complaints of wolf threats to human safety in Wisconsin this year, according to the DNR. The incidents were reported April 30 in Washburn County and May 30 in Price County. No wolf was shot in either instance.
In another hunting-related case, a ruffed grouse hunter in October 2012 in Minnesota shot and killed a wolf that approached him and his dog. The wolf was 8 yards away when the hunter shot. He was not cited.
The most common form of wolf conflict reported in Wisconsin is with livestock producers. As of last week, 73 confirmed or probable wolf depredations were recorded this year in the state, most on livestock. Other animals killed by wolves include bear hounds and family pets.
The number of wolf depredations this year already has surpassed the annual totals in 2023 (69 confirmed or probable) and 2022 (49).
Johnson said wolf depredations are likely higher this year for multiple reasons, including a mild winter in 2023-24 that made it harder for wolves to catch their primary prey, white-tailed deer. When wolves come into spring and summer in poorer condition they are more likely to attempt to kill livestock.
In addition, lethal controls have been unavailable to wildlife staff since the February 2022 ruling that put the wolf under protections of the Endangered Species Act. Johnson said non-lethal abatement methods such as visual and auditory deterrents lose their effectiveness over time.
An updated population estimate is expected sometime this fall.
Waterfowl hunting safety tips
The south zone duck hunting season opens Saturday in Wisconsin. Waterfowl hunters should follow best boating safety practices as they hit the water this season, according to the DNR.
The top safety tips include wearing a life jacket, avoiding overloading boats, safely transporting firearms, making sure boat lights are working, and sharing your hunting plan with someone on land, including your expected return time and location.
Exposing the Big Game 