Grizzly Bears - Past, Present & Future

[Sytes]

Here's a list of bills that have been called out for stalling delisting:

Prominent Scientists Push Back Against Delisting Grizzly Bears: Op-Ed

When it comes to assessing biological recovery of grizzlies, who is better informed—people who study wildlife for a living or governors and legislators who dislike grizzlies and wolves?

mountainjournal.org

And here rests the situation... Political subjective interpretation of "science".
Place the science behind it and you are directly pitting the science by Chris Servheen on the other side - outside the political sphere.

Are we operating this by science or by red/blue interpretation? Based on your link... It opposes Servheen's science based position.

Politics over conservation is one single aspect within the red/blue spectrum, which is effecting his current opinion.

 

[rogerthat]

Until you have lawyers and judges pull their head out of their A....This will never get resolved. It's sad it's taken this long. Lawyers make no money if you take their bread and butter work away from them....You can tell I'm not a huge fan of lawyers in certain decision making

Just doing their jobs right?. #lawyersgottoeattoo

 

[Ben Lamb]

And here rests the situation... Political subjective interpretation of "science".
Place the science behind it and you are directly pitting the science by Chris Servheen on the other side - outside the political sphere.

We operating this by science or by red/blue interpretation.

Politics over conservation is one single aspect within the red/blue spectrum, which is effecting his current opinion.

I know a lot of the people who signed this. They're R & D, but overall, they're scientists first. Their opinion is far more informed than a schlub like me, or even you, buddy.

 

[375H&H]

Here's a list of bills that have ben called out for stalling delisting:

Prominent Scientists Push Back Against Delisting Grizzly Bears: Op-Ed

When it comes to assessing biological recovery of grizzlies, who is better informed—people who study wildlife for a living or governors and legislators who dislike grizzlies and wolves?

mountainjournal.org

Those bills are being used as a red herring to stop the delisting.

If you truly think getting rid of those bills would lead to a delisting then you are dreaming. I would bet everything I own that if those bills were removed they would find something else to stall the delisting, just like they have done over the past decade.

The anti’s will never accept a line in the sand and will always try and take more and more opportunity away from hunters, regardless of what we “compromise” with them on.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those bills are being used as a red herring to stop the delisting.

If you truly think getting rid of those bills would lead to a delisting then you are dreaming. I would bet everything I own that if those bills were removed they would find something else to stall the delisting, just like they have done over the past decade.

The anti’s will never accept a line in the sand and will always try and take more and more opportunity away from hunters, regardless of what we “compromise” with them on.

 

[TOGIE]

^ the problem isn't what scientists say is a fact. it's what people say the scientists said.

here's not a fact, but i suspect it is: the majority of the voting population digests its "science" from CNN, Fox News, Joe Rogan, and politicians.

here's also not a fact, but i suspect it: that's why we're even having this conversation right now.

 

[406dn]

Those bills are being used as a red herring to stop the delisting.

If you truly think getting rid of those bills would lead to a delisting then you are dreaming. I would bet everything I own that if those bills were removed they would find something else to stall the delisting, just like they have done over the past decade.

The anti’s will never accept a line in the sand and will always try and take more and more opportunity away from hunters, regardless of what we “compromise” with them on.

Maybe, but having these laws in place makes its very easy for a decent lawyer to argue that the state can not be trusted to manage grizzly bears with their viability assured for the long term.

I do think you are correct there is a lobby that will never be satisfied with any delisting. But, these laws make it very easy for them to prevail in court.

 

[Big Fin]

Maybe, but having these laws in place makes its very easy for a decent lawyer to argue that the state can not be trusted to manage grizzly bears with their viability assured for the long term.

I do think you are correct there is a lobby that will never be satisfied with any delisting. But, these laws make it very easy for them to prevail in court.

^^^This.

 

[TOGIE]

also, we can't ignore the reality that unfortunately it's understandable (and there are some good reasons) why people are skeptical of science sometimes:

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

Documents show that in the '60s, the sugar industry funded Harvard researchers who, examining risk factors of heart disease, dismissed concerns about sugar and doubled down on the dangers of fat.

www.npr.org

science is absolutely susceptible to the warping of greed and money.

that's why nobody trusts either side on the "science" anymore. because it has been abused in the past. badly.

 

[Big Fin]

We have decades of accumulated information that fully supports the viability and health of these bears. Nobody from the sugar industry, nobody from the extraction industry, nobody from the (insert paid hack here) has been the groups funding that science.

If let our frustrations of the legal process afforded by the American judicial system cause us to look for shortcuts, to give up, or to pass stupid legislation that hurts our cause, then we will get what we comes with giving up; a shit sandwich. Those who oppose state management hope we will do all of those things. I am advocating that we don't do those things, we don't give up, that we work to correct the mechanisms being used to abuse the process.

Science supports our cause. If folks want to distrust the decades of work that went into the grizzly bear research, I guess that is up to them. I'm not giving up. Conservation is never easy. If it was, they'd call it golf. And, conservation always comes with friction and discomfort. I accept all of those consequences that come with what it will take to accomplish this effort on grizzlies.

 

[TOGIE]

We have decades of accumulated information that fully supports the viability and health of these bears. Nobody from the sugar industry, nobody from the extraction industry, nobody from the (insert paid hack here) has been the groups funding that science.

If let our frustrations of the legal process afforded by the American judicial system cause to look for shortcuts, to give up, or to pass stupid legislation that hurts our cause, then we will get what we comes with giving up; a shit sandwich. Those who oppose state management hope we will do all of those things. I am advocating that we don't do those things, we don't give up, that we work to correct the mechanisms being used to abuse the process.

Science supports our cause. If folks want to distrust the decades of work that went into the grizzly bear research, I guess that is up to them. I'm not giving up. Conservation is never easy. If it was, they'd call it golf. And, conservation always comes with friction and discomfort. I accept all of those consequences that come with what it will take to accomplish this effort on grizzlies.

don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting we give up. but admittedly my hope is waning.

i was only posting in an effort to give context to part of the reason there are so many difficulties when it comes to stuff like this. i'm not suggesting the science is bad. i just want to provide context to why it has become difficult to believe the science is good amongst our american public.

the american public distrusts science not because they are stupid, but because they've been duped too many times. "fool me once" if you will. both sides leverage this mistrust for their benefit. though not saying that's the case with those that faithfully trying to delist.

i'm only hoping to show that in helping with issues such as grizzly bear delisting, we as a country need to help restore a broken faith in science that, unfortunately, there are good reasons for. the fossil fuel industry, the sugar industry, the ag industry, and yes all the greeny industries, have proven to us, that the science may not be what it seems/what they are pushing in many cases.

part of getting an issue like this - what i do believe to be is a recovered species - now legally recovered also needs to be preceded by extremely hard work in getting a broken trust in science in this country healed and unbroken.

this is why your work and these podcasts are so important.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FYI - The 60 minute mark (or so) is where Randy & Chris start to really get into what will it take to get to delisted.

 

[ccc23454]

When this all started i believe the science people agreed to magic number of around 800 bears in the GYE. We hit 800 bears YEARS ago, most organizations estimate populations are currently around 1000-1050 but i (and many others) think this is more than a bit conservative. I went out for five or six hours last week and seen nine grizzly bears in that limited time (thread on it). There is a guy laying in a billings hospital(may be discharged by now) that seen 35 or 36 in a couple days, while high these numbers are not that uncommon. One of 399s cubs that are now subadult had to killed this week and everyone knew it was coming yet we allow this game to continue and will happen again shortly as the other three continue to venture out. They grew up being allowed to wander through towns and learned food sources associated with humans. Game and fish has already confirmed sightings in the Hanna area, that makes them closer to Fort Collins than center of Yellowstone. Time is critical or you will have unintended consequences. We seen what happened with wolves, i have lost my trust in science being accuractly gather, interpreted or used by anyone especially once courts are involved and history has shown us science isnt always right. Its not science or legal jargon its fact: there are to many grizzly bears in this ecosystem!

 

[TOGIE]

Game and fish has already confirmed sightings in the Hanna area, that makes them closer to Fort Collins than center of Yellowstone.

no trying to derail... or debate, but is that true?

source?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

When this all started i believe the science people agreed to magic number of around 800 bears in the GYE.

While I agree with the premise there are enough GB to warrant delisting, an unfortunate reality is folks can get way too hung up on a raw number.

Lots can change in a decade, and it is entirely possible to have things threaten population connectivity, food source availability, etc such that a judge may find cause to deny a delisting petition.

 

[ccc23454]

no trying to derail... or debate, but is that true?

Wyoming bear report

Below is article about WY annual bear report, pretty good info and review for those not familiarized with our bear problem. Spoiler alert here they come CO...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[375H&H]

Maybe, but having these laws in place makes its very easy for a decent lawyer to argue that the state can not be trusted to manage grizzly bears with their viability assured for the long term.

I do think you are correct there is a lobby that will never be satisfied with any delisting. But, these laws make it very easy for them to prevail in court.

If the argument occurs in Missoula or similar, then yes, it would be easy. I’m sure it would also be easy if all the “facts” pointed to a delisting (which they do, right?) as long as the court was in Missoula.

There are plenty of examples of how many of those methods of take are legal in other areas and have ZERO effect on grizzly bears, so it’s hard for me to get on board (Idaho, Canada, Alaska, etc).

A total kill quota for grizzly bears regardless of how (like is in the delisting plan) would work fine. But again, science has nothing to do with this debate, it’s all about emotional discomfort with a trophy grizzly hunt.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

the american public distrusts science not because they are stupid, but because they've been duped too many times.

I am a nurse. I work in an ER. There is a staggering amount of stupid in the American public. Combine that with most Americans caring more about agenda than fact, and I think it's a cop-out to act like people have been duped. People want what they want, and they will choose the fact/science/opinion that supports them. In the case of grizzlies, the people who want more will want more no matter what, and the people who want none will want none no matter what. The number of people who want management AND conservation with actual measurement of scientific parameters is such a small minority in the middle that you see the frustration vented here.

QQ

 

[TOGIE]

I am a nurse. I work in an ER. There is a staggering amount of stupid in the American public. Combine that with most Americans caring more about agenda than fact, and I think it's a cop-out to act like people have been duped. People want what they want, and they will choose the fact/science/opinion that supports them. In the case of grizzlies, the people who want more will want more no matter what, and the people who want none will want none no matter what. The number of people who want management AND conservation with actual measurement of scientific parameters is such a small minority in the middle that you see the frustration vented here.

QQ

i think it's a cop out to say everyone is stupid.

that's giving up.

everyone thinks they're in the brilliant minority that want [fill in the blank] done with "actual measurement and scientific parameters"

people need to realize that.

 

[BuzzH]

When this all started i believe the science people agreed to magic number of around 800 bears in the GYE. We hit 800 bears YEARS ago, most organizations estimate populations are currently around 1000-1050 but i (and many others) think this is more than a bit conservative. I went out for five or six hours last week and seen nine grizzly bears in that limited time (thread on it). There is a guy laying in a billings hospital(may be discharged by now) that seen 35 or 36 in a couple days, while high these numbers are not that uncommon. One of 399s cubs that are now subadult had to killed this week and everyone knew it was coming yet we allow this game to continue and will happen again shortly as the other three continue to venture out. They grew up being allowed to wander through towns and learned food sources associated with humans. Game and fish has already confirmed sightings in the Hanna area, that makes them closer to Fort Collins than center of Yellowstone. Time is critical or you will have unintended consequences. We seen what happened with wolves, i have lost my trust in science being accuractly gather, interpreted or used by anyone especially once courts are involved and history has shown us science isnt always right. Its not science or legal jargon its fact: there are to many grizzly bears in this ecosystem!

According to who?

While I may agree, you and I aren't the only players in this game.

Hunters have this attitude that only their opinion matters. That in turn causes a lot of the angst that other members of the public have toward delisting, and hunters in general.

We do have a huge seat because we pay the bills, but that's not to be mistaken that there are other users and citizens to consider. Including those that may have the opinion we don't have enough grizzly bears on the landscape.

One of the reasons I'm in favor of a grizzly season is not to control numbers, but to remove old boars so that more grizzlies exist. The more there are, the more they expand, the argument of threatened connectivity goes down the drain.

But I'm flat wore out on we need to hunt them to control numbers and to "put the fear back into them". That's all nonsense.