Utah Wild Horses Shoot

I loved this shoot sooo much. Can't wait to do it again! Big thanks to my good friend, Preston, for taking me out there and showing me how it's done. (And for use of his amazing lens again.)
I really loved this white horse. It was the first one I saw, and it's just very wild and primitive looking, with it's long, stringy white mane.
I didn't notice anything amiss while we were shooting. It wasn't until I downloaded the photos to my hard drive that I noticed something surprising about this palomino. Can you see it?
This gray stallion was the boss. He was stirring the others up and sort of herding them around. A very tough looking horse.
Wild horses being....wild. I was so glad to see the landscape out there so colorful. I've been out there a half dozen times and it's always very brown and dead looking. With the long Winter and very mild Spring, there's lots of greens on the ground, making these pics all the more sweet.
This guy was sort of a buckskin, I guess. A very powerful looking horse. He was impressive in every way, from his long, stringy mane and tail, to his wildly colored coat, to his very muscular appearance.
We were hoping for a lot more action from these horses than we got; perhaps the heat made them a bit more docile than usual. It was 91 degrees at 5 o'clock. Every once in awhile, though, a couple of them would pick at each other until one of them would explode a bit; nothing long-lasting; just a very wild-sounding winnie, and a kick or two.
There is something very freeing, being out in the desert, and seeing horses, living in very wild, often harsh conditions. I was raised with horses and my family has always had 4 or 5 around. But being out there last night, I have a sense that this is the life meant for the toughest, hardiest of beasts. And for them, they'd prefer it no other way than to be free of reins, free of saddle and rider, free of any fence or gate. I can't wait to get back out there. I will dream about it until then.

A Tale of Two Mormons

This is a brief overview of the 2012 presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Jr. I'm curious to know--and I still don't--why Utah Mormons favor Mitt Romney over Huntsman so overwhelmingly. Sort of gives me secondary embarrassment. (By the way, I make no secret that I'm supporting Huntsman in 2012.)

Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Environment: "One of the Governor's first priorities after taking office was to meet with Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman to discuss the removal of the radioactive mill tailings. The tailings pose a leaching threat to the Colorado River, and possible contamination to water users downstream."

(http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pljTB569wVMJ:www.utah.gov/governor/news_media/article.html%3Farticle%3D687+huntsman%27s+record+on+wild+lands&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

Climate change: Huntsman backed a program by Western states to limit greenhouse gases considered responsible for climate change through a cap-and-trade plan. While he is a progressive on environmental issues, he opposes the Cap and Trade Bill, based on the premise that the economy can't take it. (USA Today)

Civil unions: Huntsman backs civil unions for gay couples, calling it a fairness issue...Huntsman told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that he believed in "traditional marriage" but that supporting civil unions was a "fairness issue." (USA Today)

Wilderness Issues: On wilderness issues, such as the roadless rule, he seems to walk right down the middle, where he wants wilderness preserved, but wants all potential stakeholders involved in the process. (On this, I'm likely to disagree, since often the only stakeholders that matter are the ones who have the most money.) But I give him credit for taking a moderate approach, rather than a pro-energy approach above all. (Just today, the UT legislature met with the BLM to talk about future approaches to land management and wilderness designation; unfortunately, I think it's headed for WAY less federal input and more immediate local input. On many issues, I think the decisions should be left up to the most local government. But, The Grand Staircase, for instance, is not just Southern Utah's land; it belongs to everyone.) Mostly, my bias be exposed, I'm worried for the few beautiful places left; that they're all too often eyed by the all-mighty dollar and the all-mighty oil/gas industry. Come on, Huntsman! Be a champion on this issue!

Crossing political lines: Well, most obviously, Huntsman, Jr. accepted the position as Ambassador to China, under Pres. Obama...that's enough proof for me that he puts service above party. Also, of late, he's made several public slams about the Republicans in Washington. Prove me wrong if I am but, I haven't heard Romney do the same, ever.

Abortion: Huntsman, Jr. is pro-life and signed into a law a parental consent requirement for pregnant teens to obtain an abortion. He also answered in an ABC interview that he would support a Right to Life Amendment, meaning, making abortion illegal, except in the cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. He and his wife have both biological and adopted children. I'm respectful of a pro-life stance, as long as it doesn't entirely take away a woman's ultimate right to choose.

Immigration: He focused a lot on immigration, due to pressure from Utahns. He pressured the Western Governors' Association to work on immigration reforms. As far as I can tell, he was for a pathway to citizenship for all who wanted it, meaning a green card as a right to work, a work visa as a pathway toward citizenship. As with nearly everything, he approaches the issues with sensibility; he's very cerebral about things, always wanting to ignore emotion and rhetoric...and party.

Gun ownership: Recently said in an ABC interview that he would NOT veto an assault weapons ban. (Actually, this was a gaffe; he called the interviewer back soon and said he'd misunderstood the way the question was phrased and said he WOULD veto an assault weapons ban and pointed to his record on 2nd Amendment rights in Utah). Utah has THE most lax rules and laws as it pertains to gun ownership and gun rights.

Personal: Married, father of at least 6 kids (2006 bio), Member of the LDS Church though maybe not what Utah Mormons would consider "orthodox." Grandfather was a Mormon apostle, father is a Seventy. Dropped out of high school, later to obtain his GED. Served Mormon Mission in Taiwan. Graduated from U of Penn in Business.


Mitt Romney

Environment: The former Massachusetts governor has stood on each side of the cap-and-trade issue; he has gone from staunch advocate for taking on global warming to a climate change skeptic. He does think humans do contribute to climate change, to some unknown extent, but he seems always to fall to the side of let's not legislate anything based on it, especially if it might slow the economy. (I'm no fan of total deregulation; I believe Romney will undo any and all regulation of oil/gas drilling, as well as the banks.) He once claimed he was a lifelong hunter, then said anyone who called him a hunter had “mischaracterized” him. He supports clean energy, just not in the form of wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. (Eco-Nomics)

Gay Marriage/Civil Unions: First and foremost, he's still willing, if pushed by his party, to repeal the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which kills him on this issue, in my opinion. Welcome to 2011 America, Mitt. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9086489/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/romney-plays-hardball-gay-marriage/from/toolbar)

Mitt Romney's gay rights flip-flop: When running for senate in 1994, Mitt Romney wrote a letter promising a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Kennedy. Romney was trying to get an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans. The letter said, "...as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent." Romney has recently made it clear that he opposes gay marriage and he is trying to position himself as the most conservative candidate for U.S. president, opposing most rights for gays and lesbians.

Abortion Rights:

In October 2002, campaigning for governorship of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would “preserve and protect” a woman’s right to choose. He now describes himself as opposing abortion. His political positions as governor were pro-choice, although he vetoed different legislation that would have "expanded abortion rights." He's since said if a bill came across his desk as president, to ban all abortions, he'd gladly sign it.
Again, I have respect for the pro-life position, except when it attempts to infringe upon the woman's ultimate freedom to choose. (And tough to tell, really, where Romney stands; seems always to depend on who his audience is.)

Immigration: He had been somewhat compassionate on immigration, not wanting to keep illegal children from receiving aid, such as in-state tuition. He then, in 2007, took a hard-line approach and said no aid, no amnesty, no work for illegals. They'll all have to go home at some point. As well, he authorized MA's police force to arrest illegal immigrants. (ontheissues.org). Again, sort of depends on his audience.

Guns: Said during his governor campaign that he "...is NOT inline with the NRA." In 2006, while still governor, he joined the NRA.

Taxes: Raised over $500M in taxes and fees; fees on marriage licenses and impact fees for building homes, and raised taxes on businesses.

Health care: Created universal healthcare, including a health insurance mandate in MA, after which Obamacare has greatly been modeled. Now, he's really, REALLY against Obamacare.

Personal: 5 kids, married, graduate of BYU and Harvard Biz and Law Schools. Mormon missionary in France. Helped make the '02 SLC Olympics financially successful.

During the most recent Republican debate 2011, Romney's big campaign platform seemed to be " Obama sucks." Nothing really offered from the man himself.

So, what is it, Utah Mormons? What is up with the love affair of Mitt Romney, especially to the point of overwhelming preference over Gov. Huntsman? I don't get it.

2 million acres of AMAZING

OK; yes, I'm aware that this train has NOTHING to do with Yellowstone, but we did see it on our trip home. As we made our way toward Echo, UT from Evanston, WY, we passed this train. Brynn had to shoot the pic from our moving car so we couldn't capture the whole thing. But this train was a mile long and each and every flat bed (the whole train) had these tanks on them. It was so crazy to see a mile of these tanks just going down the train tracks. I have no idea where they were going but, ARE WE PLANNING ANOTHER WAR?!?!
OK, this was also on the way home, through Randolph, UT. A few trees at the tiny post office were full of maybe 20 vultures. I've taken pictures of these birds before, in other places, but I couldn't resist. Pretty cool creatures, if you ask me. Nature's garbage disposals for any and every carcass.
This is Lewis Lake, and is actually in Grand Teton National Park, south of Yellowstone; the two are connected. I was actually surprised that the entire lake was still covered with ice in mid-June. But it made me happy; I'm not nearly ready for the Summer heat. This lake is at 8000 feet above sea level, so I guess it's not all that unusual for it to be frozen.
These were the last animals I shot in YNP. They're sandhill cranes. I have seen them and shot them before, here in Utah, but I had never seen a sandhill chick. Come to think of it, I haven't seen the babies of very many birds at all, especially the wild ones. This is an excellent time of year to visit YNP if you're into babies. Most of the animals have them now.
Just a landscape. I am sort of sad that I didn't take more time to shoot landscapes, as there are many, many incredible opportunities for them in Yellowstone. I need a second camera so I can keep one set up for super telephotos of wildlife, and the other for landscapes. This shot is OK, but I passed up some amazing shots out of pure laziness and sort of a one-track mind for wildlife. But I think you still get the idea that YNP is a very special, very beautiful place. 2 million acres of intact ecosystem. I wish places like this were more valuable to people. Instead, the special places are usually considered "waste land" and prime locations for drilling rigs or coal mines and the like.
This momma badger is out hunting for ground squirrels. I watched her leave her den and disappear down a squirrels den for about 5 minutes. She came up with nothing, unfortunately, but went on hunting. I thought I'd hang out by her den to see if she'd return with food for her babies, but I was pressed for time and had to leave before that happened.
Here's momma with her two babies. Aren't they cute? They were really fun to see and to watch as they played with each other, practice fighting like a lot of other baby animals. We used to see a lot of them around here, but it's been over ten years since I've seen any. The farmers have killed them off; guess they didn't like them threatening their chickens. Even I killed one once, in order to keep it from killing a small puppy chained up in someone's yard. I wish I hadn't have now. But I'm pretty sure that puppy would have been badger food if I hadn't.
This is one of three grizzlies I saw while in YNP this time. The first one was too far out to bother with the camera. The second one, which was in this same area, was still pretty far out; I have pictures that aren't worth posting. This guy was awesome and ended up walking right by me and another photographer. He passed by us at about 20 yards and then went into the river, swam across, and this is him getting out the other side.
This is him again; doesn't he have a cute butt?
Here he gave us a little smile for the camera before going on. I was ecstatic to get pictures like these. I've definitely had less successful trips than this one before. Thanks for showing up, Mr. Bear!
These are river otters. I was lucky enough to shoot some two Winters ago in YNP. At that time, the river they were in was mostly frozen. But they'd go in what little open water there was and come up with fish after every dive, it seemed. There were 3 this time, though I only managed to get two in the shot. When I saw them, I was too close for the lens I had on. I waited just long enough to get this shot, which isn't great. Then, they dove in and went upstream to fish, only poking their heads up a couple of times. Wish I could have done better with them. Oh well, I'm so driven to get back up there. In another life, I'll be a wildlife photographer ;)

I could love it here...

Well, we made it to Yellowstone yesterday afternoon. Brynn suggested the trip about a week ago, to my surprise. I LOVE Yellowstone and would like to make it a bi or tri-annual trip. But, with our busy schedules, once a year is better than nothing. I fell in love with Montana way back in high school, when me and four friends moved up to the town of Red Lodge, after our junior year of high school. We were only there for that Summer, but it was long enough to bond with the place. There's a feeling of freedom and wildness here, not unlike the feeling I get in Alaska. I think, once I'm done with school, we'll be looking for work in Alaska and Montana and I'll be in Heaven in either place. This first photo is a coyote. She was hunting by herself along a little pond.
These mountains are very "Montana" to me. I love the mountains in this place and in Wyoming, which are tall and often look like huge grassy meadows reaching to the sky. I took this photo along the trail to Hellroaring Creek.
I've seen more bison here than ever before. They're everywhere; doing very well, I'd say. This was along the NE Entrance Road, just a bit east of Lamar Valley.
The bison calves are so cute, and they're everywhere. I'm sure some will fall prey to wolves and bears. For the most part though, elk seem to be the main course for predators. I watched 2 wolves, early this morning, run right through a group of bison calves. That I could see, they left them alone. Unfortunately, the wolves were an easy 1/2 to 3/4 mile or so from me; no chance for a photo, even with an nice 400mm lens. There's still hope, as we're here until tomorrow. I plan on checking out the Slough Creek area for the pack of wolves there. Rumor has it, one member has been seen at fairly close range.
Mid-June looks pretty great in Yellowstone Nat'l Park.

Seahawks and sea monsters...

OK. These will be in reverse order, I guess; I don't have the patience to move everything around at this point. Most people who watch the NFL don't realize that the mascot for Seattle's football team--the Seahawks--is actually an Osprey; seahawk is just a nickname. This one is just coming back out of the water after diving, unsuccessfully, for a fish.
You can just see his head; he's just getting upright, readying his wings to fly up and out of there.
Osprey are AMAZING fishers. Unlike bald eagles, which swoop down and grab fish off the surface of the water with their talons, osprey actually dive right in, under the water when they have to.
You can just see the tips of his wings here, immediately after the dive. It was so great to watch this predator; he must have dove 5 or 6 different times. Unfortunately for him, he never caught anything. However, a couple of years ago, I was fishing the Weber River around Coalville, where there were many osprey nesting in the area. And while my friend and I caught nothing, we watched fish after fish being pulled out of the river by these great raptors.
Hitting the water hard for that elusive fish.
They soar around, watching the water for movement and once they find it, they sort of square up and plunge quickly for the water.
Just coming back out of the water. Was so hoping he'd have luck on his side. But alas, he came up empty.
As I was trying to follow him through my lens, I snapped just as a magpie flew across my lens. Thought it made an interesting shot.
Thank you, Mr. Osprey, for an AMAZING performance!
Pelican, just landing.
I love these black birds with the bright yellow eyes!
Like many bird species, pelicans seem to stick to a mate for life. What a cute couple.
Not difficult for me to fathom a close relationship between today's birds and yesterday's dinosaurs.
Trying to scoop up some fish.

Kill so they can kill some more...

Let me preface this entry with this: Hunting for your subsistence is honorable; killing for sport is another thing altogether. I will repeatedly use the term "hunter" in this entry; I am directing the majority of my claims toward the sport/trophy hunters, as I believe they are the biggest enemy of the wolf and ecology in general.

All of you know by now my affinity for nature, for wildlife, and especially for wolves. For the past 6 months, there has been more and more talk about the wolf issue here in the West. As you can imagine by reading my other wolf-related entries, this issue gets people heated. Why do people--specifically hunters--hate wolves so much? Why do groups like Safari International, Big Game Forever, Cabela's, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and others lobby so hard to get rid of the wolves? There is a pretty simple answer.

If you mention wolves around the vast majority of hunting enthusiasts, your likely to get an earful. They love regurgitating the talking points they've gotten from "sportsmen" shows, magazines, stores, and other hunters. Pick up nearly any hunting magazine around here and you'll find an article or four about how wolf reintroduction has "decimated" the ungulate populations. Now, even though the word decimate literally means to take one out of every ten, the hunter will go on and on about how there are NO elk left; they'll ramble about how they've hunted an area for 20 years and now there are NO elk or deer anywhere. The truth about this claim of decimation is true and it isn't. Certainly, areas where many hundreds or thousands of elk once roamed out of check, are now found to be with fewer elk, but this doesn't mean there are NO elk; it usually means the elk have scattered; moved on to other areas with fewer predators. What hunters won't mention is the fact that, in places like MT, WY and ID, after 15 years of wolves, elk numbers are still exceeding state objectives. If you want to know why this is a very good thing, for the wolves, the land, and the elk, go back to my earlier wolf blogs where I go into more depth on that. To put it simply,
wolves = fewer, more scattered ungulates = stronger, more alert, genetically superior elk = less grazing = more intact ecosystems.

So, why wouldn't hunters want all of that; at least the part about genetically superior elk and more intact ecosystems? Well, hunters have lots of competition. As the hunter prizes that trophy elk, so does Mr. Bear, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Other Hunter and good old Mother Nature. And, this just makes a hunter uneasy about his chances. To Mr. Hunter, superior elk and good ecosystems are all fine and good, as long as he's just about guaranteed to get to shoot one of those superior elk on a "hunt" that is essentially a canned hunt, meaning every odd is in his favor.

Guaranteed? Oh yes. And he'll talk about this issue, as there is some predestined entitlement to kill an elk and hang it on his wall. And he'll talk about how he and his buddies have laid some sort of claim to the elk in the mountains and, thus, should have more to say about it than anyone else. Entitlement? Really? A guarantee? Hmm....I don't remember that part of the Constitution. I don't remember reading or hearing about this guarantee, ever. I do believe that God gave man the beasts of the field to sustain himself. However, there was never a guarantee, or a right, or a claim of ownership over the elk. No, I believe those are God's elk/Nature's elk. We have no more claim on them than does the rest of the biosphere.

About that imagined claim of more right to influence wildlife policies, the hunters will tell you about how more of the money they spend on hunting tags, etc...goes into habitat restoration and game management programs. As far as I understand it, they are correct, and that their money is spent on habitat preservation, restoration, etc...is commendable, by itself. But then, in order to fully respect that, one ought to ask why would hunters spend money on habitat and lobbying the way they do. Do they just love the elk and deer? Are they simply fascinated by the ungulates and never want to see them vanish? Do they believe elk and deer were meant to roam the mountains around us? (Wouldn't that also mean ALL native animals should roam our mountains?) Well, perhaps; it might be a small factor. But what if nothing was in it for the hunter? What if there was no hunting allowed? What if there was no guarantee? Would they still spend their money on habitat preservation and making sure the elk and deer populations thrived? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say NO, they would not. They've shown that what they ultimately want, that great motivating force behind their good deeds, is that they want to kill those elk and deer. They pay their dues so they can kill things. Many of them don't care what; put a living, breathing mammal in front of them and they'll kill it and then pose for a photo with it and then maybe get the thing stuffed and put on the wall, thus ensuring the praise of their friends for years to come.
(By the way, in terms of pure dollars related to wildlife, for every $1 spent by hunters/fishers in Utah, $2 is spent by people just hoping to SEE wildlife.)

Maybe it's just me but, "to hunt" implies having to look around, to scout, to stalk, and maybe to work really hard IN HOPES of finding what you're looking for. If you hunt something, you obviously don't know if that thing is there; you are simply looking for it; no guarantee. Today's "hunting" philosophy: 4WD truck, 4WD 4 wheeler with a winch, camoflauge everything, trail cameras, high powered rifle, high powered scope, paid guides, private property, spending WAY more money for that guarantee than what you'd spend on meat at the store, etc...The truck will maybe get you close enough for a shot; the 4wheeler will get you even closer and will carry out your kill for you; the high-powered rifle will put you "within range" at over a mile away; the high-powered scope will get you even closer; you'll quench that blood lust before you even squeeze the trigger; the guides will take you right to the place where they've been watching the same trophy animal, every day, for months; the trail cam will do your hunting for you so you won't have to move a muscle; all of that "hunting" will assure you that you'll win the pissing contest between all the other hunters on a given year. By the same logic behind the anti-wolf lobby, we ought to kill all bears, kill all wolves, kill all trees--easier to see the elk, make it illegal for any hunter's path to go in an uphill direction; much easier to walk downhill. No, let's take that even further; it should be illegal, come hunting season, for any elk to remain hidden up in the mountains; by law they should be forced out of the hills and within 10 feet of all major valley roads. No, that's not right; it ought to be the law that once an animal has been chosen by the hunter, it must jump into the back of the hunter's truck where it would then be shot dead. Wait, no; only shot to maim itself, so it could go ahead and gut and skin itself on the way to the taxidermist, where it could then finally die. Trophy hunters are practically hunting on farms anyway; everything is basically a canned hunt these days. They don't want fair chase; they don't want it to be difficult; they want it to be as easy as possible to bag an elk with a bigger rack than the one over at the neighbor's house. See where I'm heading with this yet? (By the way, the funny scenarios I've  just painted are very nearly reality in some places like Texas and Africa).

To a wolf, hunting means hunting. They know there's no guarantee of a kill. The only guarantee they have is that, if they don't eat, they won't survive. The average wolf is about 95lbs. They don't have guns, they don't have scopes, they don't have trucks nor 4 wheelers. They have 4 legs on which they must run and beat their prey. They have to out wit an elk to win. They fail miserably on the majority of hunting attempts. But their survival depends on them succeeding some of the time. To bump their chances at all, they generally go after the young or the very old, the sick and the weak, leaving the strongest animals--those with the best health and genetics--to survive and pass on their traits. The way wolves hunt and survive will benefit elk populations, habitat, and vast ecosystems leaps and bounds more than will the high paying, guarantee-seeking hunter.

Why do the hunters want to get rid of the wolves? It's not because they simply love the elk and deer and moose. It's their love of killing the elk, deer, and moose that drives them. Trophy hunters kill wolves so they can kill some more.

To a wolf, hunting means food. They know there's no guarantee of a kill. The only guarantee they have is that, if they don't eat, they won't survive.

In the spirit of most of my hunting friends being from Utah:

*“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”

--Pres. Joseph F. Smith--

*

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ‘sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)
“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)
“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.”  (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

*“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”
--Joseph F. Smith--

Stuff, including Nature Saturday

From Nature Saturday, this was a snow slide across the canyon road. Had to hike the bike over it. I had anticipated it, but thought once I crossed it, I could ride my bike up the road to a favorite trailhead. I was wrong, as most of the road the rest of the way was covered in snow. I finally ditched the bike and just hiked it, which was more relaxing, actually and I was able to take in the beautiful surroundings, rather than just be huffing and puffing trying to pedal up that steep canyon. Anyway, this bike is one of my favorites. It's 20 years old; I bought it barely used in 1995.
This was a couple of weeks ago. We had taken my son to the pond to feed the ducks. I remember my mom taking me and my siblings to the pond to feed the ducks. It just seems natural to take my son there. He loves it. But there was this badass seagull that drug a fish up the shore and was tearing it up. I always say nature isn't always pretty, but then again, it is.
For our 5 year anniversary, big spenders we are, we drove 3 hours down to Capitol Reef, a national park in Utah which is quickly becoming a favorite destination for me. It was beautiful as always, albeit cold and windy. Wish my pics would have turned out better; I didn't have he patience in that wind though. Still, a great trip.
Egyptian Temple, Capitol Reef Nat'l Park, UT
While driving down a dirt road on the south end of the park, we stopped, very randomly to look at some plants. There's rock and cliffs to climb on everywhere you go. I climbed up this rock and found what must be some Fremont Indian ruins. Sort of a makeshift shelter under a huge boulder and, if you look closely, you'll see old corn cobs. A very cool find.
Just some prettiness of the West Desert, Simpson Springs, UT area.