Puffs

What a trip . . .

A gray wolf in Nebraska is something we often connect to our frontier heritage, most likely taken place in the 1800s. But, that may be changing.

A bit unusual, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission reported last week that a large canine killed January 28 near Ueling, Neb., was indeed a gray wolf, not a large coyote.

I suspect many of us remember stories of wolves from our younger days. We got most of them from books or early “Western” movies or TV shows.

The wolf was hunted to where they were almost eliminated except in maybe Alaska, or deep in the Rocky Mountains someplace.

Just like many animal or bird species that were near extinction, the wolves are on a comeback line. Not too many years ago they were re-introduced to the Yellowstone National Park and are rapidly expanding their range.

I bring this up only because I find it interesting. The first modern confirmation of a wolf in Nebraska occurred near Spaulding in 2002. The second south of Bassett in 2020 and now this one near Ueling.

The trip . . . All three confirmed wolves in modern times were genetically linked to the population in the upper Great Lakes area.

I’d consider that quite a trip . . .

A O

The Games and Parks Commission also put out their annual warning to the public that they should leave wildlife babies alone. They suggest putting any bird nests back into trees, but leave the babies alone. Other animals, like rabbits or deer should just be left alone. Parents are most likely somewhere near and will take care of the babies after the humans leave the area.

A O

The Supreme Court . . .

If you can remember from years ago, the only time the public heard from (or about) the Supreme Court of the federal government was if a truly important decision was made and published.

Today, this third arm of our federal government seems to be in the news more often than many would like to see.

Some of the publicity comes from certain elements in the country who want to increase the number of judges from nine to 13.

And the reason they want to do so is purely “political.”

The liberal ‘fringe’ in the country often gets it goals accomplished by declaring an “emergency.” They then stir up as much ‘feelings’ about their supposed emergency until they feel they can change whatever they think should be changed.

Look back about eight or ten years ago when the president decided our health care system was an “emergency.” They passed the ‘Affordable Care Act’ and nothing has been the same since as cost keep going up.

The national Democratic Party has deemed the fact that the Republicans got to select three Supreme Court Judges while President Trump was in office as an emergency and something has to be done about it. Along with that they contend there are now six “conservative” to only three “liberal” judges and that is an emergency.

All the while, the judiciary is supposed to be non-political.

Their answer . . . Congress should expand the court to 13 judges and the current Democratic president could appoint four more judges, expecting them to be liberal judges, of course.

Nowhere have I heard any reason other than this. They do not make a case that more work would be done; we would have ‘better’ decisions; or the court would be more efficient and economical to operate. The only reason I’ve heard is that the Democrats would get to appoints more judges.

We’ve had nine judges for well over a hundred years now and it seems to have worked pretty well for all that time. I really don’t accept that we have an ‘emergency’ and can’t see any reasons to change what we have.

“If it ain’t broken, why fix it!” That little phrase is often used to question actions of all kinds and I think it fits here.

A O

Lastly for this week:

Roses are red, the grass is riz,

‘O how I wonder what that white stuff is . . .

Enough said about this Spring season.

A O