MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Grizz hunting is over

Also, is there a reason problem GYE or Northern Rocky bears aren't moved around to promote pop growth, or non-problem bears for that matter? I mean if the goal is to use GYE as a "bear well" why not catch a couple of dry sows every year and drop them off in the Belts, Bridgers, Cabinets, Anaconda, Etc.


Yes, there is a reason. Reason being that when the Gbear was listed, the states, in this case Montana, worked with the USFWS to determine what was the required range and populations to be considered "recovered." That was a negotiation, to some degree with MT at the metaphoric gun point, with the negotiation being that MT (and other states) would make huge changes to management activities within the agreed upon geographic areas deemed necessary for a viable and recovered population.

Now, some who do not like how that was negotiated, want to change it and will litigate to get the outcome they want. And their request to move bears to newly identified places that will be "socially unacceptable" (USFWS term) and areas with high conflicts of other human activities is not only reneging on the deal that was struck, but will cause an uproar of a high degree.

The USFWS is comfortable with their science and the fact they and their partner-states have fulfilled the requirements for a viable and recovered Gbear population. They are not going to risk credibility by moving problem bears to places where it was negotiated to be excluded from the Primary Conservation Area.
 
"I appreciate your points and bringing them forward. I hope this thread can be helpful to let more people understand how much work, compromise, and science has went into Gbear expansion over the last forty years. We have come a long ways. The bears are recovered. A lot of people in the core Gbear areas have made huge adjustments to their activities to accommodate Gbears. These kind of decisions are a kick in the crotch to those who have worked hard and changed their lives to meet the criteria that allows for a robust and viable Gbear population".

This thread is on a hunting website where one would be hard pressed to find many members who think this decision wasn't a kick in the crotch. The points Yellowstoner brought forward were a good small snapshot of other views that exist out there, like 'em or not. That's why I think it was a good post. Actual wannabe Grizzly bear hunters are in the miniscule minority regarding this topic. Most don't give two shits about this, many probably believe what and most anything they hear, read, google out there - a lot of which is produced by those who are (for whatever reason{s}) against G bear hunting.
I agree with Yellowstoner about the increase in polarization between the "stakeholders" over this. The only winners will be attorneys.
In today's (political and otherwise) climate, anyone being surprised and angry that "the science" takes a back seat to absolutely anything is surprising to me......
 
Yellowstoner does make a good point. It will be a bloody fight. The other side continues to use brass knuckles and we continue to play by the "rules". I'm done playing patty cake. Struggle with that provocation of thought on point. ;)

If it didn't apply, probably should take no notice. Struck a nerve did I, BHR?;)
Gechyerelkyet?
 
Yellowstoner, you appear to be a conflicted hunter that has whole lot of biased and poorly informed opinions. You do not come off to me as someone who would ever favor a grizzly hunt for any reason. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're absolutely wrong - I strongly believe in using hunting as a management tool, and really I think that thinning out the grizzly numbers in the GYE isn't necessarily a bad thing - I'm just not sure we're quite ready for it. I'm also not saying that my opinion is 100% right, but I do think interconnectivity is a conversation that's worth having. While I understand that it wasn't mandated in the initial recovery documents as a requirement for delisting, that doesn't mean it shouldn't factor into my own opinions about the matter.

As far as the reintroduction of the wolf to the GYE and in regards to their dispersal, feel free to read the recovery plan here:
https://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoff...rn_Rocky_Mountain_Gray_Wolf_Recovery_Plan.pdf

Note that it's called the "Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery Plan" - not the "Yellowstone and Bob Marshall Recovery Plan". It was always a goal for them to disperse to appropriate habitats throughout the Rockies.

Was the goal of griz reintroduction to connect the 2 populations in Montana? I have never read that anywhere except from you.

Well, I'm not sure that I'd put it that way, but we were definitely moving towards this goal at one point. In 2000, the USFW approved a reintroduction to the Bitterroots, which had widespread support among locals. It seems like a political shift (Bush administration) caused that to attempt to fail. It was approved and nearly happened, however. A friend of mine wrote a book on this story - https://www.amazon.com/Grizzly-West-Attempt-Reintroduce-Mountain/dp/0803266731

I get the points you are making, but that is not what was provided as the criteria for delisting. The issue of connectivity has been tried by the litigators and refuted by the best bear scientists on the planet. There is nothing in the Gbear ESA listing language that requires Gbears to occupy the Big Belts, Little Belts, Crazies, or any place outside the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) for that matter, to allow for delisting. I get that some, including you, feel that requirement should be added now as an additional requirement for delisting, though the science upon which this listing/delisting states such is not necessary for a secure population in the GYE.

I disagree with your comments about habitat. If you read the Conservation Strategy (CS), you will see huge habitat restrictions that have been implemented for Gbears in the GYE. Every part of the PCA is divided into habitat areas and all are monitored and managed for Gbears, expanding the core Gbear habitats since the bears were listed. For anyone to say that habitat has not been managed, changed in allowed use, and therefore expanded for Gbears, is a false statement. The CS and supporting documents have extensive detail as to these habitat adjustments, all of which required serious changes in human activities allowed in those areas, over the last 25 years. Most of SW MT, NW WY, and Eastern ID have had huge changes to habitats in terms of allowed human activity, all for the benefit of increaed core habitat areas for Gbears. One can look at those areas in the PCA and examine the allowed uses today and management strategies for Gbears, as compared to 30 years ago,and it shows a huge increase in core Gbear habitat over that time.

I appreciate your points and bringing them forward. I hope this thread can be helpful to let more people understand how much work, compromise, and science has went into Gbear expansion over the last forty years. We have come a long ways. The bears are recovered. A lot of people in the core Gbear areas have made huge adjustments to their activities to accommodate Gbears. These kind of decisions are a kick in the crotch to those who have worked hard and changed their lives to meet the criteria that allows for a robust and viable Gbear population.

Fin, there's a whole lot to digest in your responses, and I will say thank you for fighting for these creatures. I realize that this is a slap in the face to the whole recovery effort. States should absolutely be able to manage their own wildlife appropriately, and I don't think we should use the ESA as a ransom note. It's been abused for far too long for many animals, and has often stood in the way of progress. What I'm saying more than anything is that I believe that we need further expansion before we open up a hunting season on these animals. Unfortunately, the ESA has become a means to that end. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho would have the gumption to hold off on a hunting season for these animals. The litigation that is currently unfolding is ugly, but I just want to echo something that you've said many times - that 90%+ of the population are non-hunters. This is an issue that the hunting community is going to get tacked to a wall over. It makes hunters look like blood-thirsty trophy killers (and trust me, that's what people outside the hunting world see from this), while many of us see it as the hunt of a lifetime.

Just because the terms were agreed to many years ago have been met doesn't mean I have to agree with those initial terms. We've reversed course on many decisions at the federal level, and the act of delisting has brought this issue to the forefront. I just hope that ultimately our trajectory is towards more widespread approval, and I don't see a way that hunters come out of this unscathed.
 
I would also like to say thank you all for the thoughtful and enlightening conversation. I am truly torn on this issue, and my opinions have honestly been swayed by reading all of the above responses. Coming into this thread I was firmly on the side of ESA protection for the grizzly, and after having done a little more reading and thinking on the issue, I can say that delisting is probably the right thing to do at this point. Just know that this fight is not without its consequences.
 
I would also like to say thank you all for the thoughtful and enlightening conversation. I am truly torn on this issue, and my opinions have honestly been swayed by reading all of the above responses. Coming into this thread I was firmly on the side of ESA protection for the grizzly, and after having done a little more reading and thinking on the issue, I can say that delisting is probably the right thing to do at this point. Just know that this fight is not without its consequences.

Thanks for the well thought out response Yellowstoner. Just understand, not fighting for what is right has consequences as well.
 
Hunting grizzlies in Wyoming does nothing to prevent the spread of bears between the Yellowstone and Glacier populations, so that argument doesn't hold water. And like Big Fin says, that was never a goal of recovery anyway.
 
Hunting grizzlies in Wyoming does nothing to prevent the spread of bears between the Yellowstone and Glacier populations, so that argument doesn't hold water. And like Big Fin says, that was never a goal of recovery anyway.

Your first statement is not accurate Southern Elk. Overpopulated bears tend to disperse into new areas. Hunting up to 20 bears will help regulate the population and thus reduce the need for the bear population to disperse.

Got to be honest and accurate in your comments if you want to be taken seriously.
 
I think he was referring to how a hunt in Wyoming would limit bears moving to the South and East, but not to the North, which is where the population would connect in Montana. So from my perspective I see what he was saying and tend to agree.
 
Taking a bear out of its occupied territory will create a void which will be filled by another bear. Gbear territory is large, and when they become crowded, that's when conflicts occur. Less conflict, less the need to disperse.
 
Your first statement is not accurate Southern Elk. Overpopulated bears tend to disperse into new areas. Hunting up to 20 bears will help regulate the population and thus reduce the need for the bear population to disperse.

Got to be honest and accurate in your comments if you want to be taken seriously.

I stand by my original statement. Hunting bears south and east of YNP does nothing to prevent or inhibit bears from moving north of Bozeman, MT, which is where the connection of the two ecosystems would be. I realize grizzlies ranges are large, but we are talking 200 miles with hundreds of bears in between.
 
I think he was referring to how a hunt in Wyoming would limit bears moving to the South and East, but not to the North, which is where the population would connect in Montana. So from my perspective I see what he was saying and tend to agree.

Yes, thanks.
 
I stand by my original statement. Hunting bears south and east of YNP does nothing to prevent or inhibit bears from moving north of Bozeman, MT, which is where the connection of the two ecosystems would be. I realize grizzlies ranges are large, but we are talking 200 miles with hundreds of bears in between.

Okie dokie.
 
If you kill 20 boars it will not reduce the population by 20 because it will increase cub survival. Especially in a population that is at carrying capacity. At least that is my understanding. If the population is growing, it may very well continue to grow. It may not effect dispersal.

That's a good point and very possible scenario.
 
If you kill 20 boars it will not reduce the population by 20 because it will increase cub survival. Especially in a population that is at carrying capacity. At least that is my understanding. If the population is growing, it may very well continue to grow. It may not effect dispersal.

Close, but not exactly. What you are getting at is the idea of compensatory mortality. Up to a point, the mortality associated with well managed hunting will remove a similar number of individuals that would have died in that same year anyways due to any number of things....euthanized problem bears, hit by cars, intra-species conflicts, old age, etc. Basically all the hunting does is compensate for the number that would have died without hunting. This type of hunting has no impact on the population as a whole over the long term. It’s only when mortality due to hunting exceeds the mortality that would occur anyway that it becomes what we call additive mortality and could begin to negatively impact the population. In a long lived, relatively slowly reproducing species like griz, hunting opportunities will likely always be fairly limited in the lower 48 just to keep it within what would be compensatory levels. If you further restrict hunting to just boars, it is entirely possible to have some hunting opportunity AND a growing population. Hunting and population growth are not mutually exclusive, and that seems to be the point that people struggle to grasp. There are endless examples of states using this very model to successfully manage any number of other species that we all enjoy chasing every fall.
 
Hunting Wife, I'm thinking you're close but not exactly.
I'm guessing MTTW was simply referring to the decrease in cub mortality due to adult male attacks on the young.
MTTW????
 
Hunting Wife, I'm thinking you're close but not exactly.
I'm guessing MTTW was simply referring to the decrease in cub mortality due to adult male attacks on the young.
MTTW????

You’re probably right here. I shouldn’t have posted as a response to MTTW, his post just happened to inspire a thought. It seems like some posts here (and a general notion among people in general) rest on the underlying assumption that having a hunting season automatically means zero or negative population growth. Simply trying to say that isn’t necessarily the case and explain why.
 
Just, my guess, Hunting Wife. Without clarification from MTTW, who knows. We should both be careful about owning mistaken perception and/or just plain being wrong on here - could be frowned upon:D
 
I have friends that have worked at Greens Cr. They had pics of bears on the walk ways in front of their bunk cabins and standing in the haul road. Said usually the bears pretended like you weren’t even there. Not this time, unfortunately.
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,417
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top