Grizzly delisting - The end goal

[BuzzH]

That's right.

my bad. Thanks for the correction.

Listed as threatened in 75, with the state managing & limited hunting.

I don't ever recall a season around Yellowstone in my (hunting) lifetime...I think it may have shut down in 75 or maybe even earlier???

But the Bob was OTC with a human caused or total over-all known mortality quota with a sub-quota on females. Not a fall season every year, even in the Bob/Scapegoat/Front...but almost every year.

IMO, the spring seasons on the Front torpedoed state management. Most of the mortality was known prior to the fall hunts...not so with the Spring seasons.

I saw 2 bears that came from the Front on those spring seasons...absolutely the most beautiful, full furred bears I've ever seen.

 

[Randy11]

Must have missed it in the proposal, from what I read it seemed that hunting wouldn't play into it immediately. If you have a place to point me to read, I'd appreciate!

I also should've clarified that even if tags WERE made available, it would be unlikely that many people would have one due to limited supply. That's what I meant when I said you wouldn't likely have a tag in your pocket in this lifetime.

I was getting my information from this- https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-the-greater-yellowstone-ecosystem-population

About halfway through you get to a substantial section on hunting. It certainly reads as though hunting is being planned as part of the management, and that's how the discussions I've heard have sounded, but maybe that's not the case. I shouldn't have used 'right away' I guess.

 

[NKQualtieri]

For the 2015 DMA population estimate of 717, the total allowable mortality for independent females is 22 and for independent males is 50. Applying the average background mortality of 15 and 22 for independent females and independent males, respectively, that would allow for a discretionary mortality inside the DMA of 22−15 = 7 independent females and 50−;22 = 28 independent males. If the average background mortality was higher than the 2012-2015 average of 37, there may not be any discretionary mortality in a given year. Concurrently, if the average background mortality declined, there may be additional discretionary mortality available.

These examples serve to explain the process that will be used to determine discretionary mortality. Within these mortality limits, state fish and wildlife agencies have discretion to determine whether they intend to propose a grizzly bear hunting season and/or how much discretionary mortality (within allowable limits) to allocate to hunting.

This is where I pulled my reasoning from earlier. The numbers are discretionary. Just because they state numbers from 2015 doesn't necessarily mean that a hunting season would apply to 2017 or beyond. My interpretation, though.

 

[Big Fin]

Well, I guess I'll go ahead and be the bad guy here...

While I agree with both Randy and Ben as far as the ESA goes, that when populations reach levels to delist, it has to happen or there is no faith in the system anymore.

On the other hand, judging by the way MTFWP has managed some of the other wildlife resources under their purview, I have a real hard time trusting much of anything they do.

Like it or not, I can fully understand why some are more than a little uncomfortable with handing over grizzly management to a State like Montana.

I don't trust the FWP to manage a kids fish pond anymore, I just don't.

I really cant think of one species that they manage that is better now than it was 20 years ago...not one.

I understand that some of that is out of their control, but there are many decisions they've made that have totally franked wildlife in Montana. I mean dumb, blatant disregard for the resource combined with an unwillingness to change management to reflect what's happening around them. I would even argue that their dumb idea to hold spring grizzly hunts in the 90's was the reason they lost management to start with. At a minimum, it sure didn't help anything. Its like they manage in a time warp...and never miss an opportunity to do the wrong thing.

The way that Montana manages what they have control over now...it doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy or make me want to put much faith in them correctly managing grizzlies.

Its a huge pickle that the FWP has put itself in...and they've earned every bit of it.

I'm not here to defend FWP on all fronts, or any wildlife agency for that matter, Federal or State agency. I could find examples of concern with all agencies, including the agencies currently managing these bears. But that is not the point at play here.

I would strongly disagree that MT, WY & ID should be denied management control of grizzly bears, no matter what might be the stated basis for denying such. This entire project started 20+ years ago, with many MOUs signed by Federal agencies and the states. The states were told to make A LOT of changes. The states were promised if they complied with the changes required, they would get management authority.

The states did that, and more. The states have incurred many millions of dollars of your license revenue to comply with what they agreed to under those MOUs.

The Conservation Strategy was designed with incentives for states to manage for stable, or even higher, bear numbers. The CS has huge disincentives for the states to manage for lower numbers.

The states have done all that was asked. Reneging on that agreement or moving the measurement markers at this times is complete BS. Those opposing delisting, no matter the basis of their opposition, are asking the USFWS to break the promise that was made to the states and the locals who made changes to their land uses.

Whether states implement hunting seasons, or not, I really could care less. This is about a huge effort by a lot of people, incurring costs, making changes, and allocating resources toward the end goal of making sure the future of the grizzly bear is safe. Mission accomplished, according to the best bear biologists in the world. Failure to follow through with what was promised turns this from a wildlife experiment to a social experiment.

 

[Big Fin]

I was getting my information from this- https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-the-greater-yellowstone-ecosystem-population

About halfway through you get to a substantial section on hunting. It certainly reads as though hunting is being planned as part of the management, and that's how the discussions I've heard have sounded, but maybe that's not the case. I shouldn't have used 'right away' I guess.

True, "right away," is what caught my attention.

Many factors will come into play as to whether or not hunting will be allowed. In years where human-caused mortality exceeds the allowed limits for both the total population and the female population, there will be no hunting the following year. I think 2015 is a year when that threshold was exceeded.

In years when the 18 monitoring units with in the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) do not have enough presence of Females with cubs, hunting will not be allowed.

If populations reach certain set low-end numbers, hunting will not be allowed.

And there are other triggering mechanisms that will deny the state to have hunting season.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm not here to defend FWP on all fronts, or any wildlife agency for that matter, Federal or State agency. I could find examples of concern with all agencies, including the agencies currently managing these bears. But that is not the point at play here.

I would strongly disagree that MT, WY & ID should be denied management control of grizzly bears, no matter what might be the stated basis for denying such. This entire project started 20+ years ago, with many MOUs signed by Federal agencies and the states. The states were told to make A LOT of changes. The states were promised if they complied with the changes required, they would get management authority.

The states did that, and more. The states have incurred many millions of dollars of your license revenue to comply with what they agreed to under those MOUs.

The Conservation Strategy was designed with incentives for states to manage for stable, or even higher, bear numbers. The CS has huge disincentives for the states to manage for lower numbers.

The states have done all that was asked. Reneging on that agreement or moving the measurement markers at this times is complete BS. Those opposing delisting, no matter the basis of their opposition, are asking the USFWS to break the promise that was made to the states and the locals who made changes to their land uses.

Whether states implement hunting seasons, or not, I really could care less. This is about a huge effort by a lot of people, incurring costs, making changes, and allocating resources toward the end goal of making sure the future of the grizzly bear is safe. Mission accomplished, according to the best bear biologists in the world. Failure to follow through with what was promised turns this from a wildlife experiment to a social experiment.

Amen.

And that social experiment will expand to state legislatures andbcongress if folks are 't careful.

 

[maxx]

Little devils advocate here.

Fed Control of Wildlife management bad state control good.

Fed control of public lands good state control bad.

Again I don't agree or disagree with the statements above. I haven't educated myself enough on any of these issues to make an informed opinion.

Looking from a local level here my biggest gripe with state control of wildlife is when politics get involved. We have seen it here with the Iowa DNR. They have one agenda but law makers have another.

 

[BuzzH]

Randy,

I don't disagree...but here's what I wonder about.

Is the FWP, Legislature, and Governor with their new found management authority, going to stand strong and do what's best for grizzly bears?

Or is it going to be bending over to the usual political string pullers, that give those in charge, rides in their private helicopters?

I want to see state management more than anyone, but I am not, in any way, comfortable with how Montana is operating right now.

There's a lot on the line, and a lot to lose. IMO, you're trusting the insane to run the asylum...

 

[Big Fin]

Little devils advocate here.

Fed Control of Wildlife management bad state control good.

Fed control of public lands good state control bad.

Again I don't agree or disagree with the statements above. I haven't educated myself enough on any of these issues to make an informed opinion.

Looking from a local level here my biggest gripe with state control of wildlife is when politics get involved. We have seen it here with the Iowa DNR. They have one agenda but law makers have another.

A quick search of history governing the two topics you mention shows that land ownership has no legal connection with wildlife ownership. Connecting the two may seem a worthwhile discussion, though refuted by the legal framework governing the two topics.

• Fed Control of Wildlife Management - In conflict with the 10th Amendment and supporting cases.
  
• State Control of Wildlife Management - Supported by the 10th Amendment and subsequent cases.
  
• Federal Control of lands - Constitutional and land stays held current owners; by all citizens.
  
• State control of lands transferred from Federal control - Constitutional, if Congress does it, but lands change ownership to be held in trust for the benefit of a distinct group of state beneficiaries, the state school system.

I understand those who try to connect the dots in this manner, but the reality is, these dots are not connected. At the core of the debate is better management of the lands and the wildlife according to the principles that got us here. If folks would do the job they were elected or appointed to do, rather than look for easy excuses, such as asking for state ownership of Federal lands or Federal control over state-trusteed wildlife, the stated problems would get solved.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

I don't disagree...but here's what I wonder about.

Is the FWP, Legislature, and Governor with their new found management authority, going to stand strong and do what's best for grizzly bears?

Or is it going to be bending over to the usual political string pullers, that give those in charge, rides in their private helicopters?

I want to see state management more than anyone, but I am not, in any way, comfortable with how Montana is operating right now.

There's a lot on the line, and a lot to lose. IMO, you're trusting the insane to run the asylum...

Good question. If MT agencies go that route and hunters let them go that route, then we deserve to lose management authority. I know I will be speaking loudly on the topic.

I would advocate some of these restrictions, in all three states. Since I am not King, I suspect some will not get implemented, but having been the brunt of many concerns about the hunting aspects of this Conservation Strategy, these reflect common sense ideas that would help guide the states down a path that would reduce the likelihood of a fiasco like you mention.

1. Collared bears are off limits. End of discussion.

2(a). You shoot a female, you lose hunting privileges for a long time. You are being handed a tag that carries with it a huge risk to the future of hunting, not just grizzly bear hunting. If you can't hold off until you are 100% certain it is a boar, then don't apply.

2(c). You shoot a sow with cub and you lose hunting privileges for life. Don't like it, don't apply. The decisions by an antsy hunter to pull the trigger on a sow with cubs will do more damage to the future of hunting than Cecil the Lion ever could have.

3. I would not allow hunting in the Primary Conservation Area (PCA). I would maybe think about restricting hunting only to areas outside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA). Those are bears increasingly closer to humans and closer to trouble. There are many bears outside the PCA, such that hunting within the PCA is not necessary to fill a tag. And, the PCA is the core area that is essential to maintaining all that was agreed to with populations levels and monitoring. That also removes the concern of shooting one of the Yellowstone bears that have been named.

4. I would require an 8-hour mandatory orientation course on many topics, including the social impacts of what this hunt represents.

5. For a black bear hunter shooting a grizzly, it would be loss of hunting privileges for a huge period of time. No excuse for a black bear hunter shooting a grizzly.

6. There would be mandatory reporting for every day afield, what you saw, what you shot at, what you killed.

7. Require utilization of the meat, unless tested positive for trich.

8. Consider adjusting the state plans to have slightly lower human-caused mortality thresholds than the Federal plan for some initial period. If not that idea, then during a possible period of population drops I would have triggers in the state plans that would eliminate hunting before the Federal triggers would eliminate hunting.

 

[BuzzH]

Good question. If MT agencies go that route and hunters let them go that route, then we deserve to lose management authority.

THAT is what I lose sleep over with this whole thing, and for good reason.

We aren't getting 2 bites at this apple, its one and done.

 

[Big Fin]

THAT is what I lose sleep over with this whole thing, and for good reason.

We aren't getting 2 bites at this apple, its one and done.

For sure. And if we EFF it up, we are not getting a bite at a lot of other apples.

 

[RobG]

Requiring the meat to be utilized (even with trich) might take the bite out of some of the trophy hunting arguments. It would at least complicate it.

 

[Big Fin]

Requiring the meat to be utilized (even with trich) might take the bite out of some of the trophy hunting arguments. It would at least complicate it.

For those who would protest about meat requirements, then go to AK or Canada and shoot one. Now that I think of it, "even with trich" language might be OK. I was just thinking we keep it similar to the black bear meat use requirements.

 

[Ben Lamb]

For sure. And if we EFF it up, we are not getting a bite at a lot of other apples.

Personally, I'd be more concerned that the state legislature's don't try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory than that the three states won't have defensible plans, which are implemented well.

 

[RobG]

For those who would protest about meat requirements, then go to AK or Canada and shoot one. Now that I think of it, "even with trich" language might be OK. I was just thinking we keep it similar to the black bear meat use requirements.

19th century trapper Osborne Russell wrote "The flesh of the grizzly bear is preferable to pork."

 

[shoots-straight]

Meanwhile, in Alaska they are killing Griz at an accelerated pace.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I would be completely fine with a meat requirement WITH trichinosis. If I ever take a Griz, it'll be eaten - even if I have to make sausage out of the whole thing.

Also, the 8 points Randy mentioned are very well thought out. 2a would give me heartburn until I saw a nutsack (I get that on Black Bear anyway and have limited field judging of Grizzlies) - but to me those 8 points eliminate all doubt of hunters being true conservationists.

 

[u1299]

Good question. If MT agencies go that route and hunters let them go that route, then we deserve to lose management authority. I know I will be speaking loudly on the topic.

I would advocate some of these restrictions, in all three states. Since I am not King, I suspect some will not get implemented, but having been the brunt of many concerns about the hunting aspects of this Conservation Strategy, these reflect common sense ideas that would help guide the states down a path that would reduce the likelihood of a fiasco like you mention.

1. Collared bears are off limits. End of discussion.

2(a). You shoot a female, you lose hunting privileges for a long time. You are being handed a tag that carries with it a huge risk to the future of hunting, not just grizzly bear hunting. If you can't hold off until you are 100% certain it is a boar, then don't apply.

2(c). You shoot a sow with cub and you lose hunting privileges for life. Don't like it, don't apply. The decisions by an antsy hunter to pull the trigger on a sow with cubs will do more damage to the future of hunting than Cecil the Lion ever could have.

3. I would not allow hunting in the Primary Conservation Area (PCA). I would maybe think about restricting hunting only to areas outside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA). Those are bears increasingly closer to humans and closer to trouble. There are many bears outside the PCA, such that hunting within the PCA is not necessary to fill a tag. And, the PCA is the core area that is essential to maintaining all that was agreed to with populations levels and monitoring. That also removes the concern of shooting one of the Yellowstone bears that have been named.

4. I would require an 8-hour mandatory orientation course on many topics, including the social impacts of what this hunt represents.

5. For a black bear hunter shooting a grizzly, it would be loss of hunting privileges for a huge period of time. No excuse for a black bear hunter shooting a grizzly.

6. There would be mandatory reporting for every day afield, what you saw, what you shot at, what you killed.

7. Require utilization of the meat, unless tested positive for trich.

8. Consider adjusting the state plans to have slightly lower human-caused mortality thresholds than the Federal plan for some initial period. If not that idea, then during a possible period of population drops I would have triggers in the state plans that would eliminate hunting before the Federal triggers would eliminate hunting.

Randy

Your knowledge about so many issues important to hunters/sportsmen is off the charts in my opinion! Thank for all the time and effort you donate toward these causes. I find little to ever disagree with you about. Just wanted you to know your efforts are appreciated more than you know.

 

[lamdilligaf]

As far as bears go, states had management up until the 70's when the bear was placed on the ESA. That management almost led to extirpation. To recover a slow growing species like bears in 40 years is a remarkable feat, both at the federal and state levels. That's a piece that a lot of these ESA lifers like to forget - the States have been managing alongside the fed under cooperative agreements for a long, long time and are directly responsible for the growth in numbers that lead us to a viable population. These are the people who will be managing bears, just with a little less oversight from the Fed. If things get sideways, then the liklihood of relisting comes in to play.


Montana's bear managers are some of the best in the business. While I share some of Buzz's concerns over game management, I don't have a problem with how MT does Grizzlies. Just like I don't have a problem with how WY does Grizzlies, while I think they're still sitting with their heads firmly up their backsides on wolves.

Ben, you need to get your facts straight. There was still a grizzly season in Montana until the early 90's. Buzz, your statements about Mt. FWP are dead on, with the exception of turkeys.