• Thank you for creating an account on Hunt Talk! We require that all new users contribute at least 10 posts before gaining the ability to start new threads. Once you have made 10 posts, you will be able to start new threads in the forum.

2nd Shed Hunter Hit by Grizz in 2020

SaskHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
486
Location
Saskatchewan
Is there any appetite from WY G&F to open a Grizz season?

Sounds like they're abundant and expanding their range every year.
 

SaskHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
486
Location
Saskatchewan
What do we need a season for when we're killing dozens each year because people surprise a sow with cubs?
We have this thing in Canada where it's not socially acceptable to hunt them because hunting = bad, but killing problem bears because of tourists or stupid city dwellers who don't understand how to interact with bears, is in fact, socially acceptable.
 

88man

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,307
Location
Pa
We have this thing in Canada where it's not socially acceptable to hunt them because hunting = bad, but killing problem bears because of tourists or stupid city dwellers who don't understand how to interact with bears, is in fact, socially acceptable.
Crazy
 

nrpate05

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
832
What do we need a season for when we're killing dozens each year because people surprise a sow with cubs?
I'm sure WYGF wants a season, the NJ cat lady's won't have it though. No one is arguing that the population isn't recovered and doing well. We're certainly seeing that in expanded ranges and increased human-bear conflict. To me, it really undermines the ESA. The point of the ESA is that once they're recovered the are delisted and returned to state control. It seems that the general public isn't necessarily opposed to killing bears (when someone gets attacked, a problem bear, etc), they just don't like the idea of someone wanting to hunt one and paying to do it. Doesn't really make sense to me.
 

Schaaf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
2,303
Location
Fort Peck, MT
I'm sure WYGF wants a season, the NJ cat lady's won't have it though. No one is arguing that the population isn't recovered and doing well. We're certainly seeing that in expanded ranges and increased human-bear conflict. To me, it really undermines the ESA. The point of the ESA is that once they're recovered the are delisted and returned to state control. It seems that the general public isn't necessarily opposed to killing bears (when someone gets attacked, a problem bear, etc), they just don't like the idea of someone wanting to hunt one and paying to do it. Doesn't really make sense to me.
I don't disagree. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

I'm saying we're killing more bears from conflicts with people and livestock each year than we would in a hunting season.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,834
Location
Aurora, CO ⇄ Boston, MA
I'm sure WYGF wants a season, the NJ cat lady's won't have it though. No one is arguing that the population isn't recovered and doing well. We're certainly seeing that in expanded ranges and increased human-bear conflict. To me, it really undermines the ESA. The point of the ESA is that once they're recovered the are delisted and returned to state control. It seems that the general public isn't necessarily opposed to killing bears (when someone gets attacked, a problem bear, etc), they just don't like the idea of someone wanting to hunt one and paying to do it. Doesn't really make sense to me.
I won't argue that ^ this isn't a huge part of it, but the other side of it is that the USFWS + state of Wyoming absolutely sucks at reading and following a plan. A lot of the reasons the WY season got cancelled have to do with with boneheaded mistakes.

Example; the USFWS said in the original ESA listing that they would do a study on the San Jaun mtns (essentially looking for bears and determining if they could be recovered in that area. A grizzly had been killed in the San Juan just a few years earlier, which is why the area was included in the initial plan. Then 40 years past without another grizzly found in the area and USFWS and it's an impossibly far distance for a grizz to naturally get to by itself... and if it did get there it would be an island population with no hope of genetic connectivity so because of these reasons USFWS abandoned the San Juans as a recovery area.

BUT, the USFWS said they would do a study and they didn't... 🤷‍♂️

Kinda a dumb downed version of one specific issue in the case... but it's indicative of many of issues. If USFWS were better at bullet proofing their plans we would probably have a WY, MT, and ID season right now.
 

kwyeewyk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
384
Location
Washington
Wyoming absolutely wants a season, had one all lined up before the last decision to re-list, or not delist, stopped it. They're fighting to get it back now.


This is one of the cruxes of the fight, a better way to count them apparently means we must have needed more of them for recovery than we thought in the first place!

I think a hunting season is warranted, but I also don't truly believe that it will have a measurable effect on bear behavior considering the very limited number of tags that would be available.
 

azelkhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2020
Messages
456
Didn’t Wyo authorize a grizz season 2-3 years ago? As I recall an activist judge stepped in late in the game and stomped his foot down.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,834
Location
Aurora, CO ⇄ Boston, MA
Wyoming absolutely wants a season, had one all lined up before the last decision to re-list, or not delist, stopped it. They're fighting to get it back now.


This is one of the cruxes of the fight, a better way to count them apparently means we must have needed more of them for recovery than we thought in the first place!

I think a hunting season is warranted, but I also don't truly believe that it will have a measurable effect on bear behavior considering the very limited number of tags that would be available.
Honestly... I totally agree with the judge on that one, it seems completely ridiculous not to back calculate with the new model to make sure you are consistent. Essentially if the original model underestimated the total number of bears, then the recovery goal was also underestimated and the management goal was underestimated. Therefore you just need to re-calibrate everything based on the new model.

The original count was wrong, so that needs to be updated.

Chao-2
737- Current Population, Management Goal 674, 500 Recovery Goal
Excess bears = 64

New Model (Proportionate calibration for the sake of discussion I don't have the actual model)
1000- Current Population, Management Goal 914, 678 Recovery
Excess bears = 86

Essentially if you just proportionally re-calibrated, this isn't what their going to do but it's illustrative, you still end up more excess bears than you did with Chao-2. If you simple use the new model which is more correct, and then then set a management goal based on the incorrect, under-counted original goal you end up with a massive over harvest of 326 bears.

The 2018 hunt that got shut down had a proposed total quota of 24 bears, 2 units with 10 boars and 2 sows total. The hunt would stop once 2 sows were killed in a unit, so if the first 4 bears that were killed were sows the hunt would be over at 4 bears.

As you can see if WY had simple said sure, will re-calibrate no part of the hunt would have been effected.

There are tons of anti-hunting activists attacking wolf and bear hunts, but the state of WY is moronic in their approach and that, in my opinion, is the sole reason why these hunts get shut down.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
9,475
Location
Somewhere in the basalt rocks
BUT, the USFWS said they would do a study and they didn't... 🤷‍♂️

Kinda a dumb downed version of one specific issue in the case... but it's indicative of many of issues. If USFWS were better at bullet proofing their plans we would probably have a WY, MT, and ID season right now.
This may be an overly simplistic view of the situation. If the USFWS did NOT include the San Juan study in the recovery, they could very well be called onto the carpet for not considering. They did, and tried to use common sense in their evaluation of the merits of the San Juans as a grizzly bear recovery area, and it came back to bite them.
As I recall an activist judge stepped in late in the game and stomped his foot down.
Just because a judge didn't support the hunt doesn't necessarily mean they are an activist. One things folks need to realize is that it's incredibly difficult and arduous to follow law and policy at times because of the nuance and interpretation involved in this. Management plans are subject to interpretation, whether we like it or not. It is absolutely impossible to write a management plan that specifically covers everything in black and white.

None of this is intended to defend the plan, judge's decision, or anything else.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,834
Location
Aurora, CO ⇄ Boston, MA
This may be an overly simplistic view of the situation. If the USFWS did NOT include the San Juan study in the recovery, they could very well be called onto the carpet for not considering. They did, and tried to use common sense in their evaluation of the merits of the San Juans as a grizzly bear recovery area, and it came back to bite them.
If I tell you that you need to prove to me that a gun is unloaded before hand it to me, and you open the bolt, check it, and then hand it to me you didn't do what I asked. Sure you checked it, but you didn't show me the chamber so I could verify.

USFWS should have done a study, period.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
11,938
Location
Laramie, WY
Honestly... I totally agree with the judge on that one, it seems completely ridiculous not to back calculate with the new model to make sure you are consistent. Essentially if the original model underestimated the total number of bears, then the recovery goal was also underestimated and the management goal was underestimated. Therefore you just need to re-calibrate everything based on the new model.

The original count was wrong, so that needs to be updated.

Chao-2
737- Current Population, Management Goal 674, 500 Recovery Goal
Excess bears = 64

New Model (Proportionate calibration for the sake of discussion I don't have the actual model)
1000- Current Population, Management Goal 914, 678 Recovery
Excess bears = 86

Essentially if you just proportionally re-calibrated, this isn't what their going to do but it's illustrative, you still end up more excess bears than you did with Chao-2. If you simple use the new model which is more correct, and then then set a management goal based on the incorrect, under-counted original goal you end up with a massive over harvest of 326 bears.

The 2018 hunt that got shut down had a proposed total quota of 24 bears, 2 units with 10 boars and 2 sows total. The hunt would stop once 2 sows were killed in a unit, so if the first 4 bears that were killed were sows the hunt would be over at 4 bears.

As you can see if WY had simple said sure, will re-calibrate no part of the hunt would have been effected.

There are tons of anti-hunting activists attacking wolf and bear hunts, but the state of WY is moronic in their approach and that, in my opinion, is the sole reason why these hunts get shut down.
I don't think your recollection of the seasons and quota's are accurate...
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,834
Location
Aurora, CO ⇄ Boston, MA

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,834
Location
Aurora, CO ⇄ Boston, MA
I'm not arguing that. Had they done it, and found it was unrealistic for reasons we all realize and accept as common sense, then it would have been laughed at as a waste of money when any moron could see it was unrealistic.
100%... welcome to bureaucracy.

Rules are rules.

As much anger as there is towards CBD for suing, I think some of that needs to be redirected at our government agencies for dropping the ball.

The grizzly bear thing drives me crazy, I actually got into an argument with a wildlife attorney about this issue and made some maps demonstrating how ridiculous it is to consider the San Juans. That attorney, rather sagely, pointed out that we want this process to exist and to work correctly, because we are at times on the other side of the table. Often sportsman are suing using the exact same arguments for other species. We sue for sheep, for sage grouse, for mule deer, etc.
 
Last edited:

kwyeewyk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
384
Location
Washington
Essentially if the original model underestimated the total number of bears, then the recovery goal was also underestimated and the management goal was underestimated
I guess without knowing exactly how the recovery and management goals were originally set I don't know whether this is the case or not. If the goals were somehow based on the population estimates at the time they were set, it would make sense that you'd need to recalibrate. But it seems more likely and appropriate for the goals to have been set based on genetic diversity/interchange, population distributions, fecundity, etc. to come up with a number that equals long term population viability, that wouldn't depend on a current population estimate. In that case I don't think there would be a need to recalibrate due to a more accurate population estimate, but it would be easy to argue a need to recalibrate based on new information and better science regarding population viability since the original goals were set. I do agree that it would have been easier for Wyoming to just commit to recalibrating, and it wouldn't have mattered much. Also agree that agencies in general tend to shoot themselves in the foot a lot, and can find some interesting ways to do it.
 
Top