Bozeman Grizzly Bear meeting

[Big Fin]

The USFWS is holding an informational meeting, followed by a public comment meeting on April 12th at the Holiday Inn in Bozeman.

From 2-4 pm the USFWS will be available to answer questions. That will be followed by a public comment hearing from 5pm to 8pm.

The published rule being discussed is at this link - www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php

For those who cannot make it and wish to comment, here are the instructions to do so:

Written comments may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket Number FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042, and then click on the “Comment Now!” button.

 

[ida homer]

bump

 

[RobG]

Does anyone know how many bears are they proposing to be taken by hunters? The anti-hunters are trying to make it sound significant, but I know it is a very small portion.

 

[Big Fin]

Does anyone know how many bears are they proposing to be taken by hunters? The anti-hunters are trying to make it sound significant, but I know it is a very small portion.

None, if the human caused mortality limit provided in the plan is already exceeded. A few if it is under the human caused mortality limit. And right now, based on population estimates, possibly 20 tags could be issued, if that will still stay within the human caused mortality limit for both the total population and the female subquota.

There are so many safety nets in this plan to protect bears. Those protesting this based on the hunting aspect of the plan fall into one of two categories; 1) have not read the plan to understand how many protections exist for this bear population and how limited hunting will be under the terms of "Where biologically and socially acceptable," or 2) had claimed to not be against hunting when they supported the compromise reached over years of discussion and are now self-identifying as being against hunting, though they would probably contest that claim.

We should be celebrating this recovery and all the work and compromise that has went into it. This is one of the few success stories the ESA has to show for the incredible amount of landscape use changes that were implemented for these bears.

Less than 0.5% of species listed ever make it off the list. Unfortunately, that is evidence of a system that is not working very well. If you were in a business endeavor and your success rate of a management plan you designed and implemented was under 1%, you would be fired that day.

Those protesting this are taking one more swing with the axe that will eventually topple the ESA. Maybe not this election cycle, maybe not in my life. But, sooner or later, the continued litigation for compensation and control will topple the ESA. And when it does, those who have mucked it up will have themselves to thank.

See some of you on the 12th.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Does anyone know how many bears are they proposing to be taken by hunters? The anti-hunters are trying to make it sound significant, but I know it is a very small portion.

Wyoming is focusing on just de-listing. Hunting is part of the Wyoming plan, but permit allocation is not included in the management plan.

It is about how they came to the de-listing status and what fail safes will be used to ensure the population will be maintained above the recovery levels.

 

[RobG]

Glanced through the 600 pages of doc + appendices and didn't see the human caused mortality limit. Do you know what it is?

None, if the human caused mortality limit provided in the plan is already exceeded. A few if it is under the human caused mortality limit. And right now, based on population estimates, possibly 20 tags could be issued, if that will still stay within the human caused mortality limit for both the total population and the female subquota.

There are so many safety nets in this plan to protect bears. Those protesting this based on the hunting aspect of the plan fall into one of two categories; 1) have not read the plan to understand how many protections exist for this bear population and how limited hunting will be under the terms of "Where biologically and socially acceptable," or 2) had claimed to not be against hunting when they supported the compromise reached over years of discussion and are now self-identifying as being against hunting, though they would probably contest that claim.

We should be celebrating this recovery and all the work and compromise that has went into it. This is one of the few success stories the ESA has to show for the incredible amount of landscape use changes that were implemented for these bears.

Less than 0.5% of species listed ever make it off the list. Unfortunately, that is evidence of a system that is not working very well. If you were in a business endeavor and your success rate of a management plan you designed and implemented was under 1%, you would be fired that day.

Those protesting this are taking one more swing with the axe that will eventually topple the ESA. Maybe not this election cycle, maybe not in my life. But, sooner or later, the continued litigation for compensation and control will topple the ESA. And when it does, those who have mucked it up will have themselves to thank.

See some of you on the 12th.

 

[Nameless Range]

Glanced through the 600 pages of doc + appendices and didn't see the human caused mortality limit. Do you know what it is?

From page 35. I think "discretionary mortality" could be considered hunting. Not sure if that is what you are looking for.

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3—Maintain the population within the DMA around the 2002–2014 model-averaged Chao 2 estimate (����= 674; 95% CI = 600-757; 90% CI = 612-735) by maintaining annual mortality limits for independent females, independent males, and dependent young as shown in Table 2. These adjustable mortality rates were calculated as those necessary to manage the population to the model average of 674 bears which occurred during the time period that this population's growth stabilized. If mortality limits are exceeded for any sex/age class for three consecutive years and any annual population estimate falls below 612 (the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval), the IGBST will produce a Biology and Monitoring Review to inform the appropriate management response. If any annual population estimate falls below 600 (the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval), this criterion will not be met and there will be no discretionary mortality, except as necessary for human safety.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Glanced through the 600 pages of doc + appendices and didn't see the human caused mortality limit. Do you know what it is?

It's a percentage of the population segments (male, female, young), as dictated by the annual Chao2 estimate in relation to the 2002-2014 Chao2 average. The population estimates and mortalities within the DMA are what counts.

 

[RobG]

Close, but not quite what I was looking for Nameless (and SnowyM*). Here's a screen grab of Table 2, which gives the total allowable mortality. I'm wondering how many of those would typically be allowed to be taken by humans. (Alternatively, what is the natural mortality rate?)

For perspective, elsewhere the doc says human-caused deaths in the GYA are currently in the teens. (I thought it was much more than that, but perhaps the number I saw was for the entire 3 state area.) The amount harvested by hunters would obviously add to that number, but the total would be less than the table numbers.

 

[Schaaf]

Hope sportsmen make their voice heard on this. Fin, do you know if they are having meetings in other locations too or is this the only one in Montana?

 

[Big Fin]

Hope sportsmen make their voice heard on this. Fin, do you know if they are having meetings in other locations too or is this the only one in Montana?

I'm not sure. I only know of this one in Bozeman. They are doing the same in Cody, the day prior.

 

[RobG]

The USFWS is holding an informational meeting, followed by a public comment meeting on April 12th at the Holiday Inn in Bozeman.

From 2-4 pm the USFWS will be available to answer questions. That will be followed by a public comment hearing from 5pm to 8pm.

The published rule being discussed is at this link - www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php

For those who cannot make it and wish to comment, here are the instructions to do so:

Written comments may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket Number FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042, and then click on the “Comment Now!” button.

This is today...

 

[RobG]

This was at the display and may be of interest.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The published rule being discussed is at this link - www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php

For those who cannot make it and wish to comment, here are the instructions to do so:

Written comments may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket Number FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042, and then click on the “Comment Now!” button.

Couldn't help notice the overwhelming number of Grizzly bear huggers commenting. Take a couple minutes and write in support. Hopefully they matter, but who knows. It can't hurt.

 

[RobG]

I found MWF's comments and attached them.

 

[Schaaf]

Couldn't help notice the overwhelming number of Grizzly bear huggers commenting. Take a couple minutes and write in support. Hopefully they matter, but who knows. It can't hurt.

I bet its at least 5 to 1 emotionally invested Bear Huggers to every other sane person.

 

[Big Fin]

Nice to visit with a couple biologists who were involved in this process when the Conservation Strategy was drafted 15 years ago.

 

[MThuntr]

Couldn't help notice the overwhelming number of Grizzly bear huggers commenting.

It's not uncommon for groups to send out mass emails with a directly link and a form letter to cut and paste into the comments. Many are the same people that think feral horses are good for the environment.

I won't be able to make it to Bozeman (mostly because I know it will be sabotaged by the same crazies that are overly sensational and rarely rational) but I'll draft a comment by the closing date.

 

[Big Fin]

Well, that went about like I expected. Most giving opposition would fall into three different categories; 1) Have never read the plan or they would have realized how foolish their comments sounded to anyone who has read the plan (most of them), 2) Read the plan, but suffer serious reading comprehension issues, or 3) Read the plan and don't like what it says, so they disregard all of it and spend time questioning the credibility and intelligence of the world's most highly trained grizzly bear scientists.

Some of you work for agencies and have to deal with this kind of stuff in your daily work life. Whatever you get paid, it is not enough to have days like this.

 

[MThuntr]

Well, that went about like I expected. Most giving opposition would fall into three different categories; 1) Have never read the plan or they would have realized how foolish their comments sounded to anyone who has read the plan (most of them), 2) Read the plan, but suffer serious reading comprehension issues, or 3) Read the plan and don't like what it says, so they disregard all of it and spend time questioning the credibility and intelligence of the world's most highly trained grizzly bear scientists.

Some of you work for agencies and have to deal with this kind of stuff in your daily work life. Whatever you get paid, it is not enough to have days like this.

That's too bad it went that way but as you said it's what you expected. Luckily all of those negative comments are usually unsubstantiated.