hunter/conservationist/environmentalist on Grizzly Bear management

Of all the guys I'd like to stumble into in the hills and share a campfire with, this guy would rank at about the top of the list.

But after reading this today, I'm sure we'd have plenty to argue about.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_3ef02b13-d760-5f15-b976-54a8f1e59f9e.html

Uff da, maybe he is getting a little bit delusional in his old age.

My favorite is his suggestion for us to stop maintaining trails in grizzly habitat...

Yeah, he may have thought a bit too far out of the box on that one. Or maybe he is just keeping the "I need a trail" wimps out of his favorite hunting spots.

What I believe is that the grizzlies should be delisted. The requirements for delisting have happened, get on with it.

The States must be prudent in their management, and in particular, if they allow hunting, to make sure those hunts are conducted in a responsible way by diligent sportsmen who understand what it is on the line. As much as the States have to gain by having state Management, they also have a lot of responsibility, as well as a lot to lose if they blow it.

As to the article, perspectives on these types of issues are always going to be diverse, even within the hunting community....it happens.

Joe is one of the original "backcountry badasses." That said, every concern he mentions and everything he states as his own set of conclusions, has been addressed by the best grizzly biologists in the world. Joe has my respect for most all things. In this case, he, like many others, has probably not taken the time to read the full Conservation Strategy and the supporting research. In the last few weeks I have had many discussions with people about this topic, most of whom admit to not having read the CS. And those that have read it eventually admit that they don't like state management, which is the backbone for wildlife management in this country.

Studies have shown that during poor whitebark pine years grizzly bears selected less for whitebark pine stands (Costello et al. 2014) and consumed more animal matter, boosting their fat levels to match those measured in years of high cone production (Schwartz et al. 2014). Although whitebark pine has experienced widespread declines in the GYE (see subsequent section), extensive studies by the IGBST showed no profound negative effects on grizzly bears at the individual or population level (IGBST 2013). Costello et al. (2014) reported that approximately one-third of Yellowstone grizzly bears in their study included little or no whitebark pine stands within their fall range.

Click to expand...

Next..

A lot of extreme opinions in that article. And they say Missoula has a lot of kooks. I think Bozeman is now in solid first place.

BHR, Not by a long shot.

Trophy hunting of grizzly bears will eliminate the larger breeders for hunter ego satisfaction. Hunting of bears will interfere with natural selection.

Click to expand...

Emotions or fact?

Having read enough environmental pieces, and having had a few conversations with those in the know who are also opposed to delisting, I am convinced that 99% of those who don't want delisting are opposed because they hate the idea of hunting grizzly bears.

It's not about a genuine concern for bear populations- those arguments are simply soldiers in the war against the possibility of a grizzly hunting season, so they are utilized. There is something about the idea of hunting Grizzlies that seems immoral and ugly to them. That's it. The rest is window dressing.

Greenhorn said:

Emotions or fact?

Click to expand...

Asinine opinion. This guy is loonier than the Bundy clan. Sad that Bozeman paper would waste paper and ink on this mess.

Nameless Range said:

Having read enough environmental pieces, and having had a few conversations with those in the know who are also opposed to delisting, I am convinced that 99% of those who don't want delisting are opposed because they hate the idea of hunting grizzly bears.

It's not about a genuine concern for bear populations- those arguments are simply soldiers in the war against the possibility of a grizzly hunting season, so they are utilized. There is something about the idea of hunting Grizzlies that seems immoral and ugly to them. That's it. The rest is window dressing.

Click to expand...

The closer you get to the GYE, the greater the number of people who don't like hunting, period. Packing into the Beartooths last sheep season on a warm Sunday afternoon, I passed numerous people on the trail hiking out. Three different women noticed me packing a rifle and said with disgust, "It's hunting season already?". Times have changed in the GYE. Get used to it.

This "hunter" who wrote this piece of trash in the Comical, throwing all hunters under the bus, is just a useful idiot.

Bozeman.....Montana's Kook Capitol.

RobG said:

Yeah, he may have thought a bit too far out of the box on that one. Or maybe he is just keeping the "I need a trail" wimps out of his favorite hunting spots.

Click to expand...

Maintained trails = pack strings

BuzzH said:

As to the article, perspectives on these types of issues are always going to be diverse, even within the hunting community....it happens.

Click to expand...

Good thing Topgun 30-06 didn't write this anti-hunting perspective, Buzz. You would have been all over him like white on rice.

BigHornRam said:

Asinine opinion. This guy is loonier than the Bundy clan. Sad that Bozeman paper would waste paper and ink on this mess.

Click to expand...

Loonier than the Bundy Clan?, not even close.

BigHornRam said:

This "hunter" who wrote this piece of trash in the Comical, throwing all hunters under the bus, is just a useful idiot.

Click to expand...

Joe is best known for breaking his leg while elk hunting, and walking out by himself. Field and Stream called him "the toughest man in the west." He's been hunting elk since the 50s and he'd go out for days with just a tarp instead of a tent. He'd walk for days until he found one.

I asked him about last year's elk. He said it took him five trips to get it all out. That's not bad for an 88 year old.

He's more of a hunter than most of us, and he cares more than most of us. If you were to criticize his trail maintenance idea he'd look you in the eye and tell you to grow some balls ya sissy.

I know this won't be the most popular post, but I'd like to make an argument for keeping the grizzly bear on the endangered species list. I understand there are more grizzlies in the GYE than there have been in modern history. In fact, their recovery is remarkable, considering 40 years ago their situation was dire. With the removal of the dumps in and around Yellowstone, grizzlies were nearly extirpated from the Yellowstone area. The plight of the wolf was very similar, except the deed was completed by the 1930s.

While many will compare the delisting of the grizzly with the other predators in the area (mainly wolves and lions), there are some key differences. First of all, grizzlies tend to stay in one small area for months at a time. Take, for example, bear 399 in Grand Teton National Park. She has been viewed by (literally) millions of people, and rarely leaves a square mile area for months at a time. Called 'Raspberry' by locals, her cubs have become popular in their own right, though more than half have been killed in human-related incidents (mostly by cars), due to their unabashed nature, and their tendency to hang out in the same, popular, area. However, Raspberry hangs right on the border between National Forest and GTNP. She likely wouldn't make it through the first hunting season - either that, or she will be chased off deep into the backcountry. This is the second issue with delisting grizzlies - many of them will be displaced.

As hunters chase large boars, it's likely that some of them will encounter sows with cubs that they otherwise would not have come across. This will lead to bear mortality amongst themselves, and decrease recruitment of young cubs. This is the primary concern with delisting and hunting grizzlies - and why not call it what it is? Hunting these bears is the ultimate goal for the delisting effort, though there's no guarantee that will happen. Recruitment of bears is incredibly regionalized among grizzlies. The area in which they exist as far as the GYE is concerned is fairly small, and since grizzlies aren't prone to wandering long distances (relatively speaking) the odds of them expanding their territory are incredibly slim.

Here in Montana, we view grizzlies as a symbol of our heritage. Why then isn't there a push for a more widespread population of grizzlies spanning the state? If populations of grizzlies were intermingling from Glacier National Park down to Yellowstone, their genetic diversity and available habitat would absolutely be enough to support a limited hunting season. However, their current levels (700 or so in the GYE) simply isn't enough - yet. What allowed wolves to have such an incredible recovery is their behavior. Anyone that has hunted wolves around here will testify to the fact that wolves never seem to stop moving. This trait promotes genetic diversity, because some wolves will leave their packs to find other wolves and start their own packs (or, more likely, get killed by other wolves in the process.) Grizzly bears seem to mate as a matter of convenience and availability - their primary concern is food availability. This is very different from the other predator species - for example, more than 90% of male mountain lions will travel 100 miles or more from where they are born before they find their own home territory. Grizzlies tend to live in the place they are born for the rest of their lives.

For these reasons, I currently oppose the delisting of the grizzly. I hope this doesn't come across as attacking anyone's beliefs - I just feel that we aren't quite where we need to be as far as the available territory for grizzlies. Why aren't there grizzlies in the Bridgers? Why not in the Bitterroots - where a grizzly reintroduction has already been approved (and shelved)? If we want to conserve the authenticity of our national forests, we have to consider the reintroduction of grizzlies across the suitable mountain ranges across Montana. Once grizzly populations are interconnected, I will fully support a national delisting of grizzlies, and subsequent management plans. Until then, it's hard to trust a highly-regionalized population to sustain itself against hunting pressure.

I respect your opinion but I have a few questions..

Is "Raspberry" a good example of a representative GYE Grizzly, staying in a place for long periods of time as listed in your example? Do you know this to be a factual characteristic of most wild grizzly bears that are not habituated to tourists in a national park?

Is "displacement" a bad thing for grizzly bears?

Although the bitterroot might be a great place for grizzlies if they avoid digging into the garbage bins of trophy homes in the valley, do you really think a midget mountain range like the Bridgers is going to be a suitable grizzly destination? I mean, come on - grizzlies visit the Bridgers, but it's not big enough for them to stake a tent. It would be nice to have grizzlies behind every tree in Montana, but it's just not realistic.

According to the data from the Federal Government, the bears have recovered. What's the issue with having the states manage the bears, just as they do other species?

Hunters egos? Genetic diversity? The thought of some cute abandoned cubs after some hunter illegally killed their mommy? Not being able to use the ESA listing to further other agendas?

We've got plenty of grizzly bears around, here's a photo of a griz covered stash, taken just a few hours ago.

RobG said:

Joe is best known for breaking his leg while elk hunting, and walking out by himself. Field and Stream called him "the toughest man in the west." He's been hunting elk since the 50s and he'd go out for days with just a tarp instead of a tent. He'd walk for days until he found one.

I asked him about last year's elk. He said it took him five trips to get it all out. That's not bad for an 88 year old.

He's more of a hunter than most of us, and he cares more than most of us. If you were to criticize his trail maintenance idea he'd look you in the eye and tell you to grow some balls ya sissy.

Click to expand...

"Badass Joe" has no freaking clue why I would want to hunt grizzlies.

Trophy hunting of grizzly bears will eliminate the larger breeders for hunter ego satisfaction.

Click to expand...

You can use this same logic for hunting all game species........if you're an anti-hunter. With friends like Joe, who needs enemies.

Greenhorn said:

I respect your opinion but I have a few questions..

Is "Raspberry" a good example of a representative GYE Grizzly, staying in a place for long periods of time as listed in your example? Do you know this to be a factual characteristic of most wild grizzly bears that are not habituated to tourists in a national park?

Is "displacement" a bad thing for grizzly bears?

Although the bitterroot might be a great place for grizzlies if they avoid digging into the garbage bins of trophy homes in the valley, do you really think a midget mountain range like the Bridgers is going to be a suitable grizzly destination? I mean, come on - grizzlies visit the Bridgers, but it's not big enough for them to stake a tent. It would be nice to have grizzlies behind every tree in Montana, but it's just not realistic.

According to the data from the Federal Government, the bears have recovered. What's the issue with having the states manage the bears, just as they do other species?

Hunters egos? Genetic diversity? The thought of some cute abandoned cubs after some hunter illegally killed their mommy? Not being able to use the ESA listing to further other agendas?

We've got plenty of grizzly bears around, here's a photo of a griz covered stash, taken just a few hours ago.

Click to expand...

Good luck getting Grizzlies delisted in the GYE Greenhorn. "Yellowstoner's" out number and out donate your kind, in the GYE these days.