(Religion/Life Poem) What is Our Number One Sin



Do not be a fool, do not walk in the shoes of the ignorant

Eye to eye with a spitting Cobra does not show others our brass

Hate fumes from the mouth’s of those who are stupid and blind

Careful, even a Demonic Soul like Hitler was able to write a book


Who really has the Heart and Soul of a Christ filled man or woman

Delight in the Love of The Lord, not in our bombs, blades, and guns

Laws of God or Man, which one is it that we Humans chose to serve

Faith gives us the strength to battle the Wolves who seek our demise


Plant your feet like one who is seeking the Roots of The Tree Of Life

Those who are wicked by choice will try to take away our breath of life

Some are like fodder for Hell’s Fires, it’s just that they don’t know it yet

Be careful who we choose to be our friends in this Chess Game of life


What is the worse sin that you personally believe that you have committed

Failing to realize the depth of the meaning of our girl friends first time

Not being in the lives of our young children is a Physical and Moral crime

Hell of a thing if our actions cause our children to miss The Bread Of Life



Washington States ‘Dollar War’ Over Wolf And Cougar Research




Outspoken researcher says his university and lawmakers silenced and punished him.

Robert Wielgus, director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University, lets out a howl last spring, hoping for an answer from deep in the territory of the Profanity Peak pack. (Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times)

By a slow slide of river deep in Washington’s wolf country, Robert Wielgus laughs at the tattoo on his arm of Four Claws, the grizzly that almost killed him.

“I would rather face charging grizzly bears trying to kill me than politicians and university administrators, because it is over quickly,” said Wielgus, director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University.

A Harley-riding, self-described adrenaline junkie at home in black motorcycle leathers with a Stetson and a .357 in the pickup, Wielgus, 60, is no tweed-jacket academic. For decades he has traveled North America wrangling bears, cougars and wolves to collar and study their behavior, including collaborations with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

Wielgus now finds himself crosswise with ranchers, lawmakers and WSU administrators — and their lobbyists. He’s lost grant funding for his summer research, has been forbidden from talking to media in his professional role and has been reviewed — and cleared — for scientific misconduct.

To understand why involves a look at state policy concerning a menagerie of animals: cougars, sheep, cattle and wolves. And one more animal: homo sapiens.

A motion-triggered wildlife camera captures an image of members of the Profanity Peak pack July 30, 2016. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife killed six adults and a pup in the pack last summer. (Courtesy of WSU Wolf/Livestock Conflict Research program)

In Washington, it turns out, wolves and livestock are getting along better than the people who manage and study them.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national nonprofit specializing in government scientist whistleblower protection, in April filed a 12-page complaint against WSU officials, alleging the university punished and silenced Wielgus to placate ranchers and state legislators who objected to his research. WSU officials declined to comment for this story, citing possible litigation.

The conflict started back in 2002, when Wielgus began publishing a series of influential papers that called into question the practice of hunting cougars to reduce livestock losses. His research led to a reversal by Gov. Jay Inslee in October 2015 of Fish and Wildlife Commission policy that would have allowed more hunting.

That was not long after Wielgus published a peer-reviewed paper that just as provocatively questioned killing wolves to protect livestock — a policy used by the WDFW by now to take aim at four wolf packs, including two members of the Smackout Pack killed so far this month.

His wolf study made national news with its finding that culling the predators can lead to more livestock kills, not fewer, because it destabilizes pack dynamics.

Normally for a university, national press for one of its researchers would be a point of pride. But the buzz over the paper alarmed lobbyists for WSU, hearing threats from state lawmakers that it was putting money for a new medical school and other pet projects in jeopardy.

Those legislators in turn were responding to ranchers and local officials seeking more lethal action from the department against wolves that harm livestock.

“ … Highly ranked senators have said that the medical school and wolves are linked. If wolves continue to go poorly, there won’t be a new medical school,” Dan Coyne, lobbyist for WSU, wrote his colleague, Jim Jesernig, another WSU lobbyist, two days after the paper’s publication, state records show.

Jesernig, a well-connected former director of the state Department of Agriculture, and former member of the state House and Senate, agreed with Coyne, his partner at the Coyne, Jesernig lobbying firm. “That’s my assessment as well,” Jesernig wrote in an email copied to WSU Director of State Relations Chris Mulick. “ … We are making the med school not doable.”

Replied Mulick, “We’re looking a wee bit like Sonny on the causeway here,” referring to a mob hit on a character in the movie “The Godfather.” “We’re getting in our own way on the med school enough as it is.”

A magazine story prepared by a writer for the university’s magazine and news service in advance of the wolf paper was spiked, Wielgus said. Just like a news release subsequently written, but never issued, on new cougar research out of Wielgus’ lab.

“WTF? What happened?” wrote Jon Keehner, co-author on that paper, to Wielgus.

Wielgus answered that the university was afraid of angering Republicans in the Legislature. He explained grant funds for his wolf work were now being funneled to his lab through another researcher, to take his name off the grant.

“That’s how bad it got,” John Pierce, chief scientist for WDFW’s wildlife program, said in an interview. Losing so-called principal-investigator status on a grant is a wound in academia, Pierce explained, where the ability to bring in grant money is a coin of the realm. Winning grants attracts top graduate students and helps researchers compete for more grants.

In particular, Wielgus had provoked Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, a former Mercer Island resident turned cougar hunter, elected to the Legislature to represent the 7th District in Northeastern Washington.

Rancher Joel Kretz, photographed at his ranch in 2001, displays a dead cougar head on a table while talking to a reporter. Kretz, also shown with his rifle, said cougars were hurting his livestock and that ranchers needed more liberal hunting laws to fight back. He was elected to the Legislature in 2004.(Kevin German / The Seattle Times)

Known for carrying the severed heads of cougars to public meetings — even plucking one for effect from his home freezer to sit, defrosting, on a table between himself and this reporter during an interview at his ranch — Kretz had butted heads with Wielgus from his first cougar papers that had thwarted Kretz’s efforts to increase cougar hunting in Northeastern Washington.

He attacked Wielgus’ wolf research, questioning its scientific validity to WSU officials, and opposed further funding for Wielgus.

Hans Dunshee, a former Snohomish Democrat and top budget writer, confirmed he cut a deal with Kretz in 2015 to sidestep Wielgus from the wolf research grant. “It was our way of sanitizing it while still keeping the money flowing,” said Dunshee, who retired from the Legislature last year. “I thought he was going to be OK.”

But he wasn’t.

2016 spending on wolves

Wolf management is expensive in Washington, costing $973,275 in 2016 alone. That includes $134,999 spent to kill seven wolves, including a pup in the Profanity Peak pack after the wolves killed or injured 15 cattle grazing in the Colville National Forest.

Source: Department of Fish and Wildlife
Emily M. Eng / The Seattle Times

Knocked off the grant, Wielgus lost his summer salary for two years — during the peak season for wolf research — and his travel budget.

In the end, money got tucked in for the medical school, in the same budget that sidestepped the funding for Wielgus. The school will begin its first classes this fall.

Jesernig, in an interview, recalled well the trouble wolves caused as he worked the medical-school issue for WSU.

“It’s not a great secret; it happens to any lobbyist, you have a bill you work and all of a sudden you are in trouble with leadership, same thing here,” Jerserig said. “At the end of the day the good thing about the legislative process is mostly the merits of the issue will win out on the thing you are working on, and that is what happened on the medical school.”

Outrage erupts

Already targeted for his wolf research, Wielgus poured gas on the fire last summer.

As the Profanity Peak pack started killing cows and the state launched a trapper and marksmen on the ground and in helicopters to protect the rancher’s cattle, Wielgus told The Seattle Times and other media outlets that Len McIrvin, a partner in the Diamond M, “chose to put his cattle on top of the den site.”

The implication that the rancher — whose livestock losses in 2012 also led to the state killing the Wedge pack — purposely put his animals in harm’s way to provoke the state’s ensuing kill of the Profanity Peak pack ignited a firestorm.

Thousands of angry emails and phone calls from wolf advocates poured into the offices of the WDFW and the Colville National Forest, home to many ranchers’ grazing allotments. Donny Martorello, the department’s wolf-policy lead, hid his wife in a motel. McIrvin’s family unplugged the phone at the ranch to escape death threats.

Kretz, incensed, demanded an apology from WSU just as public as the remarks Wielgus had made — and got it. The university quickly issued a news release disavowing Wielgus’s statements and asserting that Wielgus had admitted he had no basis in fact for making them.

In a letter of concern written into his personnel file, Wielgus was instructed by Ron Mittelhammer, the dean of the College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Resource Sciences to have no further contact with the media without first clearing his statements with WSU. Wielgus duly went silent as the furor raged.

“He ought to be drawn and quartered and a chunk of him left everywhere in the district,” Kretz said in an interview then with The Seattle Times, saying Wielgus had a vendetta against McIrvin.

“I think he is agenda-driven; it’s incredible damage,” Kretz said. “This is not science, it is advocacy. I would say it’s beyond advocacy, it’s baldfaced lying to the public. I don’t want to see a nickel go through his hands.”

Wielgus says today that he could have been more diplomatic; his public remarks at the time included saying “go ahead and quote me: ‘Wherever McIrvin grazes … dead wolves follow.’ Quote me. He’ll be proud of it!”

Natural migration

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Emily M. Eng / The Seattle Times

Wolves are returning to the state on their own from Idaho and Canada, and have surged into Northeastern Washington, where most of the state’s 20 packs live. Diamond M operators had been warning the department about the Profanity pack since 2014, after three confirmed kills of its cattle by the pack. But what Diamond M ranchers and the department didn’t know as the ranchers loaded up their cattle for turnout in 2016 was the pack had moved much closer to the Diamond M’s operations on public grazing lands in the Colville National Forest.

Burned out by the Stickpin fire in 2015, the wolves had moved their den from the previous year to within 5 miles of the Diamond M’s usual turnout site for the C.C. Mountain grazing allotment, and a quarter-mile from the salt lick put out in the same spot every year to draw cows up from lowland pastures to the mountain.Where cattle and the Profanity Peak pack clashed

In 2016 ranchers turned out 8,868 cows and calves on 583,315 acres of the Colville National Forest. The forest is home to many of Washington’s wolf packs, yet overall, there was little conflict between cattle and wolves — except with one pack: the Profanity Peak pack. Those wolves killed five calves and a cow before the pack was killed off by the state to protect ranchers’ cattle.

One ranch in particular, the Diamond M — with nearly 400 cows and calves using their usual allotment and salt lick — suffered the most losses. Scroll down to see how it happened.

Running slow? Enable low detail mode:

 Low detail

State biologists collared wolves in the Profanity Peak pack on June 9 and 12, 2016. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife knew 11 grazing allotments overlapped the pack’s territory — not unusual or problematic in Washington, where wolves typically share the landscape with livestock without incident.

The McIrvin family and Diamond M Ranch have held their grazing permits in the Colville National Forest for 73 years. But what the ranchers and department did not know was the Profanity Peak pack, burned out of its territory in the 2015 Stickpin Fire, had moved its den in 2016 into the heart of one of the Diamond M allotments.

Shown in orange: Activity of the Profanity Peak wolf pack taken from GPS collars in June 2016

By the end of June, the department, using collar data, knew where the den site was: about 5 miles from where the Diamond M had turned out its cattle June 9, and only a quarter-mile from the salt lick placed to draw them to higher ground on C.C. Mountain.

The ranchers figured out the den site on their own at the same time as the department, because of all the wolf howling, tracks and scat they noticed while checking on their cattle. They also were informed of the den location by the department.

  •  Cattle turnout point
  •  Diamond M salt lick
  •  Profanity Peak pack den site

Wolves range over an average territory of 349 square miles, and the Diamond M cows were soon in the heart of the Profanity Peak pack’s core activity area.

Before long, the wolves were killing calves anywhere from 1 mile to more than 10 miles from the initial turnout location and den site.

  •  Confirmed kill
  •  Probable kill
  •  Confirmed injury

The department didn’t urge Diamond M operators to get more people out watching over their cattle until after the first calf was killed July 8. While the department initially assured the public that the Diamond M was following its recommended protocol of turning out calves at least 200 pounds or larger, it later revealed that some animals were smaller, so more vulnerable.

A range rider for the Diamond M moved the salt block Aug. 8 after being asked to by the department. But that just made the problem of cows hanging around the wolves’ core activity area worse. Cows milled around, looking for the salt that was supposed to be there and licking and pawing salt still in the ground.

  •  Diamond M salt lick
  •  Profanity Peak pack den site

The WDFW carried on most of the summer and into the fall killing wolves, eventually taking the lives of six adults and a pup in the pack. The department confirmed the pack killed five Diamond M calves and one cow from another ranch.

For all the controversy, Wielgus said he is still optimistic wolves will recover from local extinction in Washington. He doesn’t think the same for himself.

The news release disavowing his statements was never shown to him, Wielgus said, and misconstrued a short conversation by phone between him and Mittelhammer.

While he has since attained tenure, Wielgus said he no longer wants to work at the university. “They called me a liar and ruined my career.”

Robert Wielgus gets ready to listen for the radio collar on the sole surviving adult of the Profanity Peak pack, mostly killed off by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife last summer for killing ranchers’ cattle. (Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times)

Confusing message

Wielgus’ conflicts with the university would continue, after he emailed a news release reporting the latest findings from his lab to the state’s Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) and others as the group debated wolf policy for 2017.

Wolf kills of livestock were exceedingly rare, Wielgus reported, occurring in fewer than 1 percent of the livestock tracked by his lab. Only in the case of the Profanity Peak pack, where cattle and a salt block to attract them were milling around the wolves’ activity area, had there been multiple calf kills, more than anywhere else surveyed, Wielgus reported.

Wielgus had sent the release to WSU communications staff and administrators and received preapproval by Mittelhammer before putting it out as his personal opinion and not on behalf of the university, as they requested. But that strategy, intended to create distance between Wielgus and WSU, just created confusion.

In an email to Mulick, the WSU state relations director, Tom Davis, of the Washington Farm Bureau and a WAG member, objected that Wielgus was sending out a press release about his publicly funded research findings but labeling them his personal opinion. He also said he wouldn’t attend the meeting if Wielgus was allowed to speak.

Mittelhammer went into response mode, personally meeting with Kretz and other lawmakers, then attending the advisory group meeting with several WSU officials. He followed up with a letter to lawmakers on April 12 reassuring them “while an irritant, the deliberations of the WAG were fortunately not significantly affected by Dr. Wielgus’ attempt to influence the group’s deliberations through the dissemination of his so-called “press release” document.

“That said, on a more individual and personal basis, it did also appear that Dr. Wielgus’ actions did negatively impact a number of individuals in the room who felt that the document reinvigorated negative feelings toward ranchers by wolf protectionists.”

He assured the lawmakers he had sent Wielgus a second “memo of concern,” and promised to follow up with investigations of whether Wielgus had broken state law by illegal lobbying and sending the press release on his state email account. He also promised an internal review of Wielgus’ 2014 wolf paper.

By May, WSU President Kirk Schulz informed Mittelhammer he was concerned WSU might be branded with an “anti-ranching sentiment.”

In other emails, the university president and Mittelhammer agreed they needed to address the school’s relationship with ranchers in future faculty hires. “I feel that they need an internal champion or person that they can work with,” Schulz wrote.

“No evidence of research misconduct”

By then, WSU had cleared Wielgus of any scientific wrongdoing. On May 29, Christopher Keane, the vice president for research at WSU, wrote Kretz and Senate Majority Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, thanking them for meeting with him in Olympia to express concern about Wielgus’ research.

However, the result of the subsequent independent review completed by a WSU statistician was clear: “There is no evidence of research misconduct in this matter,” Keane wrote.

But for faculty at WSU, the message nonetheless was clear, said Donna Potts, president of the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the nation’s oldest and largest advocacy group for academic freedom. “It was very disturbing; I had never seen anything like it,” Potts, a member of the English department, said of WSU’s treatment of a senior faculty member.

Robert Wielgus relaxes at his wolf camp, used when trapping and collaring wolves for his work studying the interactions of cattle and wolves. His studies have found most wolves don’t attack livestock and that killing wolves to protect cattle and sheep can be counterproductive, leading to more mayhem by socially destabilized wolf packs. (Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times)

Cary Nelson, former national president of the AAUP, who spoke on the issue at WSU last spring, said pressure from industry and from lawmakers friendly to it is nothing unusual. “But it’s up to a university to protect its faculty.”

Actions by state lawmakers and WSU administrators such as those taken against Wielgus have a “chilling effect” on research that could be perceived as controversial, Nelson said.

Scientists who have worked with Wielgus said they are concerned by what they see.

“It’s not that Rob hasn’t stirred up the hornets’ nest — he can test the limits and some people think he is not very diplomatic,” said Gary Koehler, of Wenatchee, who collaborated with Wielgus on bear and cougar research before retiring from the department after 14 years. “But he is a straight shooter.

“Rob is without a doubt one of the top carnivore ecologists in North America. I think Rob has been thrown under the bus.”

Snakes can actually hunt in packs


Snakes can actually hunt in packs

But you should only be scared if you live in a cave in Cuba.

Cuban boa

Scary enough on its own.

The world is a scary place without knowing that snakes hunt in packs. But one biologist in Cuba just couldn’t leave well enough alone, so he proved for the first time ever that reptiles don’t just hunt near each other, they hunt with each other.

Snakes are not social creatures. They don’t live in packs like wolves or chatter to each other like prairie dogs. They join forces for just one thing: to kill. Snakes have long been known to hunt in groupings, it just wasn’t clear how coordinated these efforts were. It makes sense that they would all have a similar sense of where the best spot to hunt is, so many snakes gathering in one area doesn’t necessarily mean they’re coordinating. To prove that, you’d have to prove that the snakes were actually taking each other into account—that if boa #2 shows up and sees boa #1, he’s more likely to stick near that first snake, because being together helps them. And ideally, you would also prove that when snakes hunt together, they’re more successful.

Of course, to do that for the Cuban boa, you have to hang out in a cave all night watching snakes dangle from the ceiling eating bats. And that’s exactly what Vladimir Dinets, an assistant professor at University of Tennessee, decided to do. He published his results in the journal Animal Behavior and Cognition. Desembarco del Granma National Park in eastern Cuba has one cave in particular where Dinets set up shop. Nine boas lived inside, which he could apparently tell apart by their markings because he is a snake whisperer, and for eight consecutive days he watched them hunt. The boas would slither up the walls at sunset and just before dawn to catch bats, hanging upside down from the ceiling of the passage that connected the roosting chamber to the exit where their leathery prey would have to pass by.

Keep in mind that all this goes down in almost complete darkness. They’re in a national park with little light pollution, inside a cave, at fairly dark times of the day. Dinets sat in a dark cave filled with snakes and bats and calmly recorded each and every movement that the snakes made. He divided up the passage areas into sections, so he could later monitor how close the snakes were to each other, and noted every time a new snake joined the fray. And then each and every time a snake caught a bat, he recorded that too. Not just the fact that a snake caught a bat, but which snake caught a bat.

The boas themselves aren’t bothered by the dark because they hunt by touch. When bats brush against them, the snakes strike. Dinets wasn’t bothered because he seems to be some kind of superhuman.

Boas who hunted alone were in the very tiny minority, and it’s no wonder—they were much worse at catching bats. With three snakes present, each boa caught an average of one bat per snake and usually did it in under seven minutes (the boas left once they caught a bat, so the maximum batting average was one). If the snake was alone, that average dropped to 0.33 and it took them about 19 minutes to even get the bats they managed to get. Some lone boas actually gave up and went home. So when the boas entered the passage and encountered other snakes, they nearly always chose to set up camp alongside each other. Together they could form a kind of barrier, such that bats had a harder time avoiding the boas.

Unlike wolves, the boas didn’t otherwise hang out together. They’re solitary creatures. Wolves hunt together for primarily social reasons—multiple studies have shown that they don’t necessarily get more food by sticking with a pack. Snakes hunt together for the strategy. How cold-blooded of them.

The French Riviera, And A Challenge For Chuck Norris


What to do on the French Riviera: A challenge for Chuck Norris

A week to discover the French Riviera, it says you directly we were struck by the diversity of attractions tourist offer. The offer is so wide and varied that the most difficult to choose remains. Impossible for us to make a choice … So today, to write to you, it relies on the power of Chuck Norris to help us choose. But who is this famous Chuck Norris and just do it in our article on the French Riviera?

Chuck Norris is the one who can do everything, even the impossible. This is for example the kind of guy who scored twice until infinity (yes) or is one who has gained power part 4 in 3 moves. You see a few levels! In short, the US giant, actor and martial artist, seven times world champion in karate and hero of the inevitable TV series Walker, Texas store marked the spirits of a generation. And also our  😉One therefore wonders what would have made Chuck😉

So beware, the humor of this article is a real bias, it does not guarantee anything. If you find that it takes too much to … Potache, nullos or even pathos … please signify and participate in a fundraiser to fund our “humor” training. Thank you in advance😉

The landscapes between land and sea

This is the picture, we found ourselves facing a great difficulty. You know, we love the big and beautiful landscapes, both “Earth” that “Sea” and there, on the French Riviera … Dilemma! In fact, you can hike for hours in the woods of the Natural Park of the Azure Alps and was tested. It was accompanied by Christiane Ray Anezin , in an accompanying incredible mountain. Information and scientific anecdotes, she knows everything about everything and she is adorable.


But you can also walk around the Esterel and its red rocks and eventually dominate the seascape and beautiful shades of blue. We like both but the time is sometimes counted … What would have made Chuck Norris? While this is indisputable, it seems that if Chuck Norris is late, time had better slow down. So we decided to go back but this time accompanied by Chuck on the Coast 😉


The relaxation and sports activities

We were very “activity”. Could spend hours doing nothing in front of the TV (except for watching Walker Texas Ranger) and again we saw the splits of the offer in the territory.

On one side you can do the Paddle to Pampelonne  of Via Souterrata  or electric bike in Caille in the Park Moulière .

And on the other, you can also make you a spa at Antibes in the Baie des Anges hotel  with views of sick sea or even a spa in the bathroom Berthemont . And again, for sick but this time on the mountain. Little more, you pay only 18 € / person to spend the afternoon on the site and believe us, ca throws!


Balance sheet, it is possible to do everything but matter can block ca finances. We therefore relies on Chuck. What would he do? Resolved! More money problem if you travel with Chuck! Indeed, Monopoly Chuck Norris can buy square and jail space.Imagine then, no money problem for him 😉

The observation of animals

Side animals, it is similar. It is exhausting to have to décarcasser as to predict his vacation (pfff strongly the job;).


We were seduced by the Alpha Park that offers of observing wolf packs . We liked the project because, if we are profoundly against the captivity of wild animals, the origin of the idea is noble in our view. Yes the park has a covered teaching . Created to reconcile man and the wolf at a time when it was decimated by shepherds in particular, is a captive granting of space for animals (2 to 8 hectares per pack). We will advise you to go during the time of feeding to observe because, otherwise, you can not see them. A 12 € / person, it’s worth it in our opinion.


Another possibility not least, the Reserve Monts d’Azur . On the plebiscite thousand times. The project is crazy and brilliant at the same time. This is the story of a man, a passionate veterinarian, who hoped that the animals spend life in semi freedom to freedom. He created a reserve in Thorenc (one hour from Cannes) where you can walk you in the middle of European Bison , the deer , the wild horses accompanied.


You can book a safari around 20 € / person or even sleeping next to the beasts that you can see from your bedroom window. And it is even very accessible because you pay € 120 / pers for the night and it includes a safari 1:30, dinner, breakfast each morning and night in a lovely room. We did not know that such an experience was.It’s just amazing. A few days we will return to go there for sure. And this time it happens to Chuck Norris because there we had nothing to choose and we would not want misfortune happens to animals 😉


Hotels: From the charming delusional

  • Hotel Windsor Nice  : Really liked the place. Good location and original. Each room is decorated in a special way and the leg of the famous artist Ben is found throughout the property. We arrived after dark but it seems that there is a beautiful garden in the hotel’s center.


  • Berries Hotel des Anges in Antibes  : We also really enjoyed the place and for different reasons. The hotel is new, the decor is refined and the welcome is warm but the real advantage is in our view the free and unlimited access to the balneo space for hotel guests (rooms from 100 € / night). We took the opportunity! And between the hammam , the sauna , the hot tubs and heated pool , there truly means to relax. In any case we were eased … Whatever may not be enough, surely we will return. We must not neglect its good psychic being right? Say yes! say yes😉


The refined restaurants of the traditional

  • Chez Huguette in Caille (The Station Audibergue). Traditional mountain restaurant , it was a long time we had not both (and as) ate in a restaurant. It should also go for the atmosphere, the servers are fun archi 😉
  • The Angelus in Hotel Baie des Anges in Antibes. Here we are on a rather elaborate and refined cuisine . It’s just excellent and again, the service is great.
  • The restaurant of the hotel Pascal Allos. Returning in the traditional and it does not hurt. We love that. Beautiful plates in perspective 😉

Well now it is time to part and in conclusion, we suggest you either go with Chuck Norris to make your stay as calm as possible and then if you do not know him, invites us and we will do all we can so that your stay is at the top. It’s a good idea right?