2nd Shed Hunter Hit by Grizz in 2020

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/Grizzly_bear_recovery_plan.pdf

 

[3855WIN]

We’re going through this with the Louisiana Black Bear. They announced at a meeting that the Louisiana Black Bear was recovered. Then my cuz in law asked when the season was going to open, as we are covered up with them on our place. Like 8-10 at any one time on our 1320 acres. Well cuz in law might as well have called their mama a whore. They reacted as if a hunting season was the craziest idea they’d ever heard.

 

[JTHOMP]

We’re going through this with the Louisiana Black Bear. They announced at a meeting that the Louisiana Black Bear was recovered. Then my cuz in law asked when the season was going to open, as we are covered up with them on our place. Like 8-10 at any one time on our 1320 acres. Well cuz in law might as well have called their mama a whore. They reacted as if a hunting season was the craziest idea they’d ever heard.

It’s been awhile since I’ve been in the bear/wildlife loop. They were close but not delisted at the time.Don’t know who was representing LDWF at the meeting but there are some characters on both sides of bears discussions.
From what I was told was that after delistment there would still be 8+ years of monitoring before considering a season. If a season happened it would only occur in the Tensas population, and Tensas NWR would remain as a refuge with tags allowed for the surrounding private land.

May all be water under the bridge at this point but hopefully that is a plan we’ll see in the future.

 

[kwyeewyk]

https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/Grizzly_bear_recovery_plan.pdf

Dammit, putting me to work here, now I have to read it?! I have a copy of this but I so rarely get to be involved in any actual grizzly management that I don't remember what it says! All right, I'll read it....

 

[kwyeewyk]

I don't see a clear answer, would probably have to dig deeper into the references, probably why it's up for judges to interpret. This outline implies population viability would be determined before baseline population estimates, which would support not needing to recalibrate based on new counting method. They mention revising the recovery targets from 1982 to 1993, so that would support an argument for recalibrating based on new population viability data. They vaguely mention that recovery goals are based in part on research information on density, habitat use, and home range when available, I suppose you could say density would possibly be based on estimated populations. Need to see the dirty work on how they came up with the actual numbers.

 

[Heyjbales]

Wow. These are some of the best and most thoughtful discussions on the Grizz issue I've ever seen...especially on a forum where things normally turn to dumpster fires. Had no idea this was where my post was going, but kudos to you folks for having good conversation here.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't see a clear answer, would probably have to dig deeper into the references, probably why it's up for judges to interpret. This outline implies population viability would be determined before baseline population estimates, which would support not needing to recalibrate based on new counting method. They mention revising the recovery targets from 1982 to 1993, so that would support an argument for recalibrating based on new population viability data. They vaguely mention that recovery goals are based in part on research information on density, habitat use, and home range when available, I suppose you could say density would possibly be based on estimated populations. Need to see the dirty work on how they came up with the actual numbers.
View attachment 140742


View attachment 140748
View attachment 140749

Thanks for digging into the document... I guess I could pull the actual brief to see the specific argument. Maybe I'll find the time

 

[azelkhntr]

Wow. These are some of the best and most thoughtful discussions on the Grizz issue I've ever seen...especially on a forum where things normally turn to dumpster fires. Had no idea this was where my post was going, but kudos to you folks for having good conversation here.

That’s generally what happens when ADULTS are allowed to discuss freely the issues of the day without the intervention of personal fascistic actions taken by others who don’t like what the ADULTS are talking about.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Thanks for digging into the document... I guess I could pull the actual brief to see the specific argument. Maybe I'll find the time

All right, did some more digging, and gotta say, you were right, and this is another classic case of the govt shooting itself in the foot, and finding an interesting way to do it. The problem on the issue of recalibration is that just before the 2017 delisting, FWS published a supplemental revised recovery criteria that appended 3 updated criterion to the 93 recovery plan, the third of which is:

"Demographic Recovery Criterion 3—Maintain the population within the DMA
around the 2002–2014 model-averaged Chao2 population estimate (average = 674;
95% CI = 600–747; 90% CI = 612–735) by maintaining annual mortality limits for
independent females, independent males, and dependent young as per table 2. These
adjustable mortality rates were calculated as those necessary to manage the
population to the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate of 674 bears which
occurred during the time period that the population had a relatively flat population
trajectory. 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."

I think their intentions were good, but a mistake by FWS to use this criteria, should have based it off genetic work somehow. Typical lawyer work, like your example of proving an empty chamber, focusing on the possibility that a different estimator could be used at some point, and that there isn't an explicit gaurantee of recalibration, even though there's no mention of changing methods or refusal to recalibrate. I'd argue that the criteria explicitly states Chao2 would be used, so it's implicit that use of another method would require a new calculation of the population average at the point where it "began to demonstrate density-dependent population regulation from 2002 to 2014" and I really think Wyoming should just say if a new method is used any point in the future recalibration would happen then, even if they're right in that there's no change in counting method proposed at this time, and that all the changes would go through committee. Jump through the hoops, just make the damn judges happy! Same with discussion of future translocations, they say "would consider" translocations as they don't want to tie their hands or rile the public, just provide more detail about how you'd "consider" translocations, provide some alternatives, and count on it not needing to happen since in reality it probably would never be necessary. Sad that a rational argument rarely beats a purely legal argument.

I watched the video of their virtual meeting, it's painful at times, but interesting...

Watch recording for Crow Indian Tribe v. USA, No. 18-36030

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@kwyeewyk Thanks for going above and beyond with the deeper dive. Bookmarked for future use with this topic inevitably comes up again.
One of the greatest parts of this forum is getting to have discussion more nuanced than rabble rabble, damn hippies, and comments like your's our prime examples of this.

@88man per the other thread and the discussion of CO wolves. I said that I wanted sportsman to and CPW to do whatever is in their power for state management. I think WY is a particularly good example of the wrong approach. CO is going to have wolves, and the faster we get to stage where CPW can use hunting as a method to keep their population in check the better. Like it or not, we have to play the game if this is going to happen and that means advocating that CPW plays by all the rules, dots all the Ts dots all the Is and doesn't give anti- groups standing in court.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

I think WY is a particularly good example of the wrong approach.

I agree Wyoming has handled their management undiplomatically, however, we were TOLD by the feds we were getting wolves, Colorado has them expanding in naturally. Hopefully CO has better luck managing them than WY has struggled with.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree Wyoming has handled their management undiplomatically, however, we were TOLD by the feds we were getting wolves, Colorado has them expanding in naturally. Hopefully CO has better luck managing them than WY has struggled with.

Wyoming's problems with wolves were largely self induced, they had easy options that could have given them state management authority years prior to the congressional action that it eventually took.

Grizzly bear recovery and the management plan for those, Wyoming has handled much better IMO. They put a lot of thought into the management plan, didn't try to classify grizzly bears as predators in 2/3 of the state, and the hunting plan was pretty solid.

@wllm1313 the final hunting seasons were different than what you posted. The max number of bears that could have been killed was 11 in the DMA , even though they had a male and female subquota that said 12. The 11th bear that was killed would have closed the season in the recovery area. Also, a maximum of 2 active hunters at a time up until either 1 sow was killed or 10 bears, then only 1 active hunter at a time, since bear 11 would either reach the 2 female or 10 male sub-quotas. Hunters were going to be given inreach devices to immediately report harvest.

The season outside the DMA was where I felt the least comfortable, it was just a straight up 12 bear quota, 12 active tags could shoot any legal bear...any combination of sows and boars. Maybe half that quota outside the DMA would have been more appropriate and was where my comfort level was.

Either way, I felt the State Grizzly Bear Management Plan was/has been based on the best available science that Sportsmen in Wyoming have paid over 50 million of our license dollars for.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Wyoming's problems with wolves were largely self induced, they had easy options that could have given them state management authority years prior to the congressional action that it eventually took.

Grizzly bear recovery and the management plan for those, Wyoming has handled much better IMO. They put a lot of thought into the management plan, didn't try to classify grizzly bears as predators in 2/3 of the state, and the hunting plan was pretty solid.

@wllm1313 the final hunting seasons were different than what you posted. The max number of bears that could have been killed was 11 in the DMA , even though they had a male and female subquota that said 12. The 11th bear that was killed would have closed the season in the recovery area. Also, a maximum of 2 active hunters at a time up until either 1 sow was killed or 10 bears, then only 1 active hunter at a time, since bear 11 would either reach the 2 female or 10 male sub-quotas. Hunters were going to be given inreach devices to immediately report harvest.

The season outside the DMA was where I felt the least comfortable, it was just a straight up 12 bear quota, 12 active tags could shoot any legal bear...any combination of sows and boars. Maybe half that quota outside the DMA would have been more appropriate and was where my comfort level was.

Either way, I felt the State Grizzly Bear Management Plan was/has been based on the best available science that Sportsmen in Wyoming have paid over 50 million of our license dollars for.

I'm curious what people think of the idea that hunting will reduce bear conflicts by making them scared? Not that that should be the goal of setting the harvest numbers, but it seems unlikely that these numbers would have much affect on behavior to me. Buzz, I think you're right about the state bear plan being based on best science and the state's intentions are good, it's just frustrating when lawyers poke holes based on technicalities, and the state/FWS doesn't seem to be arguing their case very well.

 

[Red Fox]

I agree that hunting will not all the sudden make them scared of humans. I think it would help by taking a few out of the population would slow them from moving into more populated areas. Hunting, hiking and camping in grizzly country you will always need to be aware that they are around and take the appropriate measures weather there is hunting or not.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

I'm curious what people think of the idea that hunting will reduce bear conflicts by making them scared? Not that that should be the goal of setting the harvest numbers, but it seems unlikely that these numbers would have much affect on behavior to me. Buzz, I think you're right about the state bear plan being based on best science and the state's intentions are good, it's just frustrating when lawyers poke holes based on technicalities, and the state/FWS doesn't seem to be arguing their case very well.

I've never bought into the whole "We need to start hunting grizzlies so that they become scared of us again."

You see bears in Alaska walk straight up to people without a care in the world. I don't think hunting them will all of a sudden instill a species wide fear of humans in their apex predator brain. I think the biggest thing is the legal ramifications for killing a bear in all but the most extreme cases are extremely strict. Which would be lessened if they came off the ESA.

 

[BuzzH]

I've never bought into the whole "We need to start hunting grizzlies so that they become scared of us again."

You see bears in Alaska walk straight up to people without a care in the world. I don't think hunting them will all of a sudden instill a species wide fear of humans in their apex predator brain. I think the biggest thing is the legal ramifications for killing a bear in all but the most extreme cases are extremely strict. Which would be lessened if they came off the ESA.

I agree, I don't think its a valid argument to make for a hunting season with the idea that hunting them will "make them fear people". That's likely one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and just not true at all. The only bears that "get wised up" to hunting are those that find themselves with a grizzly tag attached to their hide.

There's also some thought, that I do agree with and is based on science, that killing off some of the older, larger boars will increase the over-all population. Boars kill other bears and occupy a pretty big home range. Removing those older males could INCREASE total numbers. Another argument you hear for a hunting season is to get rid of "problem bears". Again sounds good in theory, but in practice probably not so much. Hunters are not required to shoot a problem bear, or any bear for that matter. Plus, with the populations as high as they are now, you remove one bear, another will pretty quickly occupy the void left by the bear that a hunter kills. Who knows what type of bear that will be, could be a better situation, or a bear that finds itself getting into a lot of trouble.

I don't believe there needs to be justification for conducting a season for bears, any more than the need of a justification for an elk season, deer season, moose season, etc. Its simply an argument that the species has recovered to an acceptable level, hunting is justifiable based on total population and that removing a few individuals is not going to harm, and may in fact increase, the over-all population.

Science based management is the justification.

 

[Shangobango]

It’s been awhile since I’ve been in the bear/wildlife loop. They were close but not delisted at the time.Don’t know who was representing LDWF at the meeting but there are some characters on both sides of bears discussions.
From what I was told was that after delistment there would still be 8+ years of monitoring before considering a season. If a season happened it would only occur in the Tensas population, and Tensas NWR would remain as a refuge with tags allowed for the surrounding private land.

May all be water under the bridge at this point but hopefully that is a plan we’ll see in the future.

I hope that plan has changed. The last I heard was that a lottery hunt on Tenaas NWR was on the table in the next few years.

Honestly, though who knows at this point. They have been delisted, for what, 4 years now?

I live about 35 miles from Tensas as the crow flies and bears have become fairly common fairly quickly over here.

 

[Shangobango]

I've never bought into the whole "We need to start hunting grizzlies so that they become scared of us again."

You see bears in Alaska walk straight up to people without a care in the world. I don't think hunting them will all of a sudden instill a species wide fear of humans in their apex predator brain. I think the biggest thing is the legal ramifications for killing a bear in all but the most extreme cases are extremely strict. Which would be lessened if they came off the ESA.

I guess this would depend on the amount of hunting we are talking about.

I have never been around grizzlies but they would be one of the only critters I have heard of that has no response to hunting pressure or harassment by humans if that is indeed the case.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

I guess this would depend on the amount of hunting we are talking about.

I have never been around grizzlies but they would be one of the only critters I have heard of that has no response to hunting pressure or harassment by humans if that is indeed the case.

I'm not saying animals don't respond to hunting pressure. Antelope the second weekend of season are WAY more skittish than the opener. Certainly a shot at bear will behave differently. But you're talking 10 bears (Wyoming side) in 22 million acres. Somehow I don't think that will make a substantial impact to the overall populations behavior.

 

[Shangobango]

I'm not saying animals don't respond to hunting pressure. Antelope the second weekend of season are WAY more skittish than the opener. Certainly a shot at bear will behave differently. But you're talking 10 bears (Wyoming side) in 22 million acres. Somehow I don't think that will make a substantial impact to the overall populations behavior.

I agree with you, especially if we are talking about a short time frame.

Maybe after several years or a decade it would have an affect?