Sitka Gear Turkey Tool Belt

Grizzly Bears - Past, Present & Future

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.

It is almost certain that a grizzly bear delisting effort will involve a federal court in Missoula. Given that, it seems to me, you clear the deck of everything that can reasonably be used against your case.

It is telling that the man who led the federal government bear recovery and stuck his neck out for a delisting, now feels the bear should not be delisted. While I do not know him, I'd bet he thinks the bears are presently recovered. It is also pretty clear he thinks their population status is not secure if a delisting occurs.
 
It is almost certain that a grizzly bear delisting effort will involve a federal court in Missoula. Given that, it seems to me, you clear the deck of everything that can reasonably be used against your case.

It is telling that the man who led the federal government bear recovery and stuck his neck out for a delisting, now feels the bear should not be delisted. While I do not know him, I'd bet he thinks the bears are presently recovered. It is also pretty clear he thinks their population status is not secure if a delisting occurs.
I agree, except that deck will never be fully cleared as we have seen over the last decade. Reasonable or not, it will be used against you to halt a delisting if possible in the right court.

Further, isn’t a re-listing of the grizzly bears in the management plan if their numbers fall below a certain level? If so, then why is he concerned? They would get re-listed immediately if his concerns came true, but better to play it safe just in case 2 old boars get snared out of 800+ so let’s not have state management.
 
I agree, except that deck will never be fully cleared as we have seen over the last decade. Reasonable or not, it will be used against you to halt a delisting if possible in the right court.

Further, isn’t a re-listing of the grizzly bears in the management plan if their numbers fall below a certain level? If so, then why is he concerned? They would get re-listed immediately if his concerns came true, but better to play it safe just in case 2 old boars get snared out of 800+ so let’s not have state management.
Exactly why its crucial to get it right the first time.

If wolves or grizzlies get delisted, and the States make decisions that get them relisted, they won't come off the list again, ever.

That will only solidify the belief held by many, that the States can not be trusted to manage correctly.
 
Exactly why its crucial to get it right the first time.

If wolves or grizzlies get delisted, and the States make decisions that get them relisted, they won't come off the list again, ever.

That will only solidify the belief held by many, that the States can not be trusted to manage correctly.
1000% agree.

However, nowhere could I find that snaring or those other methods of take are having a negative effect on grizzly populations anywhere that would cause them to be re-listed. Not in Canada, Idaho, or Alaska. So again, it’s hard for me to see their concern given the lack of examples.

Oh and the plaintiffs pushing against these bills in Idaho and Montana include the HSUS, Trap Free Montana and other groups I am not willing to align with on anything.
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents is that the ESA won't be blown up, and those other policies won't be "fixed". It will get worse and more political. I wouldn't be surprised if MT/ID/WY had an announcement encouraging poaching of G bears. "ShOOT,,,, SHOVLE,,,,,and SHUT UPP!" that they won't prosecute infractions regarding grizzly bears. I mean I've seen the damage and confusion a county Sheriff can do when he says he's not enforcing X laws anymore. Can you imagine that on a state level?

Well Idaho seems to take bear poaching seriously
 

Well Idaho seems to take bear poaching seriously
But only until the Gov'r says otherwise, right? I mean nothing is outside of the political sphere anymore.
 
But only until the Gov'r says otherwise, right? I mean nothing is outside of the political sphere anymore.
Federally politically appointed puppets on down to the local level.
And flip the extreme switch and the other side fixes to f-ups of the other side.

God bless the U.S.A. and, IMO, remains the greatest country though, man... This is quite the cluster.
 
My 2 cents is that the ESA won't be blown up, and those other policies won't be "fixed". It will get worse and more political. I wouldn't be surprised if MT/ID/WY had an announcement encouraging poaching of G bears. "ShOOT,,,, SHOVLE,,,,,and SHUT UPP!" that they won't prosecute infractions regarding grizzly bears. I mean I've seen the damage and confusion a county Sheriff can do when he says he's not enforcing X laws anymore. Can you imagine that on a state level?
Idaho has BTDT. We have Island Park DNA challenged Rednecks joy killing Bears with 5.7x28. :oops:
 
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.

I have no doubt there are people as passionate about trying to stop any chance another wolf or bear is shot as others are about the abortion topic. They see majestic animals with noble souls and caring families being terrorized by people with guns.

The industry that arose around these hot button issues are not always led by people with passion but rather also attracts hired guns that see a nice payday and have flexible beliefs. Heck, look at the NRA executive. He is living a very nice life with a lot of comforts even Fortune 500 CEOs are not afforded on the company dime. The apartment for the intern was a huge red flag but the staff whistles through the graveyard.

My main issue with the ESA is it provides incentives to bring forth any lawsuits rather than a very good lawsuit. Good science dies by 1000 cuts. You can build a very large law firm by focusing on ESA lawsuits and the economic recessions are not a concern.

I am not surprised at where we find ourselves. Most F&G, if not all, do not start with biology as the guiding light for policy. F&G executive leadership, often with key legislature members, decide what they want to do then put the squeeze on the biologists to find data to support the policy. If a major change, 4 or 5 gatherings will occur to hear what citizens feel though the ink is already dried on the new policy.

The non-resident marginalization by resident hunters is not helpful. A lot of support and money flows in from east of the Mississippi River from hunters that dream of a nice elk tag or a sheep tag out West. State after state is making that dream much, much harder to believe in these days. Some marginalized donors will find it easier to scratch a check to support big game back East then head to Africa where can hunt in Tanzania for the cost of a couple of Western auction or landowner tags.

We have a mess on our hands.
 
I just finished listening to the podcast, it is well worth the time.

It got me to thinking about the mark each of us might make with our time on this earth. Very few people will leave a more worthwhile mark than Dr. Chris Servheen. It is not a certainty that his path and mine will cross. But if so I would offer him a sincere thank you for his efforts for the grizzly bear.
 
1000% agree.

However, nowhere could I find that snaring or those other methods of take are having a negative effect on grizzly populations anywhere that would cause them to be re-listed. Not in Canada, Idaho, or Alaska. So again, it’s hard for me to see their concern given the lack of examples.

Oh and the plaintiffs pushing against these bills in Idaho and Montana include the HSUS, Trap Free Montana and other groups I am not willing to align with on anything.
Doesn't matter who the groups are pushing against the bills in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming...not one thin dimes worth of difference.
 
I have no doubt there are people as passionate about trying to stop any chance another wolf or bear is shot as others are about the abortion topic. They see majestic animals with noble souls and caring families being terrorized by people with guns.

The industry that arose around these hot button issues are not always led by people with passion but rather also attracts hired guns that see a nice payday and have flexible beliefs. Heck, look at the NRA executive. He is living a very nice life with a lot of comforts even Fortune 500 CEOs are not afforded on the company dime. The apartment for the intern was a huge red flag but the staff whistles through the graveyard.

My main issue with the ESA is it provides incentives to bring forth any lawsuits rather than a very good lawsuit. Good science dies by 1000 cuts. You can build a very large law firm by focusing on ESA lawsuits and the economic recessions are not a concern.

I am not surprised at where we find ourselves. Most F&G, if not all, do not start with biology as the guiding light for policy. F&G executive leadership, often with key legislature members, decide what they want to do then put the squeeze on the biologists to find data to support the policy. If a major change, 4 or 5 gatherings will occur to hear what citizens feel though the ink is already dried on the new policy.

The non-resident marginalization by resident hunters is not helpful. A lot of support and money flows in from east of the Mississippi River from hunters that dream of a nice elk tag or a sheep tag out West. State after state is making that dream much, much harder to believe in these days. Some marginalized donors will find it easier to scratch a check to support big game back East then head to Africa where can hunt in Tanzania for the cost of a couple of Western auction or landowner tags.

We have a mess on our hands.
Good to see some things never change. If a NR doesn't get their way, they're going to stop supporting public lands, grizzly bear delisting, wolf delisting, etc. etc.

I'm over it, have a good time in Africa, shoot a circus animal for me.
 
Doesn't matter who the groups are pushing against the bills in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming...not one thin dimes worth of difference.
Disagree. If it wasn't for BHA... If it wasn't for RMEF... This hot ticket or that... Organizations and $$$ make a difference regardless the issue.

Wolves reintroduced in CO, Rider Bills for wolves in MT...

Public sentiment, however niave, is the key.
 
I very much appreciate the comment(s) on how the presence of grizzlies increases the wildness/wilderness aspect of hunting in a grizzly's backyard, as I have found the same to be true. Knowing that there are other apex predators such as Grizz (that is much better at killing than I am) sharpens my experience, and in one sense, makes me a better hunter.

Because of this, I am fascinated by bears in an odd sort of way.
 
I just finished listening to the podcast, it is well worth the time.

It got me to thinking about the mark each of us might make with our time on this earth. Very few people will leave a more worthwhile mark than Dr. Chris Servheen. It is not a certainty that his path and mine will cross. But if so I would offer him a sincere thank you for his efforts for the grizzly bear.

I think he'll be at the elk symposium on August 13th in Bozeman.
 
Back
Top