Hunting Grizz soon?

[mxracer317]

US may lift protections for Yellowstone, Glacier grizzlies

U.S. wildlife officials have taken the first step to lift federal protections for grizzly bears in the northern Rocky Mountains, which would open the door to future hunting in several states.

www.ksl.com

 

[Dave N]

One word.

Lawsuit.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

One word.

Lawsuit.

Two words

Multiple lawsuits.

 

[Ghillieman]

I'll apply.....

 

[44hunter45]

Before you apply, ask Fish & Game if you get a refund when the coming lawsuit shuts it down.

 

[Ghillieman]

Before you apply, ask Fish & Game if you get a refund when the coming lawsuit shuts it down.

excellent advice..

 

[rjthehunter]

I'd apply too.

 

[rogerthat]

I’m in. A lower 48 griz would be unreal. I bet I die before that happens

 

[Mallardsx2]

It will never happen.

 

[Ben Long]

Don't hold your breath 'cause blue ain't your color.

 

[Big Fin]

Delisting grizzlies and hunting grizzlies are two different discussions. I would love to see them delisted. I think it would be great for the states to manage them and it would show that we did a lot of work to secure a bright future for bears.

The conservation strategy for GYE does allow for hunting, Hunting can be considered so long as the human-caused mortality limits (as percentages of the population) are not already exceeded. And that human-caused mortality limit becomes a problem, as with lethal removal of problem bears, with self-defense shooting of bears, mistaken bear identity by black bear hunters, bears killed by vehicles, and the host other reasons that we remove bears from the population, we already exceed the human-caused mortality limits in many years.

It's interesting to hear the arguments of some who don't want the best and newest methods for counting bears. Reason being, they know it would provide a higher confidence level, which allows for a higher minimum bear population estimate. The higher the minimum population estimate, the greater the allowance (in terms of true numbers, not percentages) for human-caused mortality. The more allowance for human-caused mortality, the greater the likelihood that hunting could be held.

Example - If the minimum population estimate under current counting methods is 600 bears and the allowed human caused mortality is say 2%, that means we can have 12 bears taken by human-caused mortality. If the population counting methods improve and we can state with the required confidence level that we have 900 bears, that human-caused mortality limit is 18 bears. That illustrates whey some the groups against delisting don't want changes in counting methods.

 

[Dakotakid]

I was surprised by the bear mortality rate from trains. The numbers of bears killed not that bear versus train kills bears. Last time I looked for numbers the death by Thomas the train exceeds numbers that one would expect hunters to take in the mortality ration outlined by Mr Newberg.

It would seem if hunters were interested in hunting grizzly bears, they would support bear train collision reductions.

 

[rjthehunter]

I was surprised by the bear mortality rate from trains. The numbers of bears killed not that bear versus train kills bears. Last time I looked for numbers the death by Thomas the train exceeds numbers that one would expect hunters to take in the mortality ration outlined by Mr Newberg.

It would seem if hunters were interested in hunting grizzly bears, they would support bear train collision reductions.

Now that's an article I would read. "$60 billion dollar spending package to reduce the number of bears killed by trains" lol

 

[bwanakubwa]

https://missoulacurrent.com/wildlife-services-grizzly-deaths/

Too many lawyers making a living keeping griz on the ESA

 

[nrpate05]

I don't see a hunt happening soon. I think it makes sense to delist the grizzly bear ASAP as all evidence points to them being recovered. The problem is that it has become a hunting vs. non-hunting issue, whereas it should be a federal vs. state management issue. The ESA was designed to restore species and then have management returned to the states. Hunting is a management tool in the toolbox if the states decide to use it.

I personally would see delisting as a win for the grizzly bear and perhaps more importantly, the ESA, which I think could use a win just about now. This legal back and forth for a single species really undermines the ESA in my mind and will only widen the gap between people who see listing as temporary and those that see it as permanent.

Hopefully the two bills currently up in the Wyoming legislature (HB0217 and HB0247) pass, changing "trophy" to "large carnivore" and subjecting them to the states wanton waste laws. I think this would take away a big argument from the anti grizzly hunting/delisting side.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The headline is click bait. The agency is responding to the petitions sent in by the states and is starting to look at what else would be needed to move this forward, but the director of the USFWS clearly states that current statutory changes have made it less than likely to succeed, and that Idaho still doesn't have what it needs in place in terms of a regulatory climate or numbers of bears to sustain a delisting.

To the credit of FWP, they are working on changing this on several fronts this session. Whether what passes will right the ship remains to be seen.

 

[canadiantuxedo]

I was all for the delisting of g-bears and the transfer of their management to the states until I attended a talk last week hosted by Todd Wilkinson and Christopher Servheen. Servheen led g-bear conservation in the US for the federal government for 35 years. While he once supported delisting, he now stands opposed. His reason: g-bears and continued federal protection may be the most substantial factor in preventing more extreme real estate development in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

Is it disingenuous to hold beliefs that, "yes I believe the science is clear, g-bear populations and habitat clearly support delisting," and also "even though the g-bear is scientifically eligible for delisting, I hope they remain listed to prevent an even greater population boom in the greater Yellowstone?" Because that's how I feel.

 

[bwanakubwa]

I was all for the delisting of g-bears and the transfer of their management to the states until I attended a talk last week hosted by Todd Wilkinson and Christopher Servheen. Servheen led g-bear conservation in the US for the federal government for 35 years. While he once supported delisting, he now stands opposed. His reason: g-bears and continued federal protection may be the most substantial factor in preventing more extreme real estate development in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

Is it disingenuous to hold beliefs that, "yes I believe the science is clear, g-bear populations and habitat clearly support delisting," and also "even though the g-bear is scientifically eligible for delisting, I hope they remain listed to prevent an even greater population boom in the greater Yellowstone?" Because that's how I feel.

You realize the Esa is to recover a species not control human populations right?

 

[canadiantuxedo]

You realize the Esa is to recover a species not control human populations right?

The ESA exists, and I quote from the enabling law creating the Act, to protect species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation" and to protect "the ecosystems on which endangered species and threatened species depend." See 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(1), (b).

So the ESA exists to protect species, to inject notions of concern and conservation relating to untempered development, and to protect the land on which endangered species live or could live. With those legal mandates, the ESA sure as hell controls human populations.

Check out the Weyerhaeuser v. US FWS case to see how the former range of a dusky gopher frog prevented development in Louisiana even though the frog had not been spotted in the development site for decades. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on the case.

I'm not here to say that using an endangered species and/or its range to control human populations is right, but it is something that is legally plausible. What I am saying is that I looked at g-bear delisting differently when I considered that its current range in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem (outside the park) could be open season for real estate development if delisted.

 

[nrpate05]

I was all for the delisting of g-bears and the transfer of their management to the states until I attended a talk last week hosted by Todd Wilkinson and Christopher Servheen. Servheen led g-bear conservation in the US for the federal government for 35 years. While he once supported delisting, he now stands opposed. His reason: g-bears and continued federal protection may be the most substantial factor in preventing more extreme real estate development in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

Is it disingenuous to hold beliefs that, "yes I believe the science is clear, g-bear populations and habitat clearly support delisting," and also "even though the g-bear is scientifically eligible for delisting, I hope they remain listed to prevent an even greater population boom in the greater Yellowstone?" Because that's how I feel.

That is an interesting point, but I don't like it. By that measure we should just list every species so we can't develop at all.