Randy Newberg's position on grizzly bear hunting

[u1299]

Don't know what the application fee should be but $50 sounds more than reasonable to me. All I know is the cost to buy a license to hunt and fish in Montana is now, and always has been too low, especially when you consider you can fish year round and hunt something, from big game to upland birds, ducks, geese, bears etc from April thru at least January (9 months). Pretty cheap entertainment if you ask me.

 

[JM77]

I'm less worried about the hunter than I am the perception of the hunt.

If all you want to do is hunt a bear, then get an OTC tag for black bear. This is a species that has a constituency far beyond what wolves did. The hunt isn't about the hunter or the opportunity, it's the special nature of what this hunt really represents - the conservation of the American west and the restoration of a keystone species. To me, that demands a premium.

Please bear with me(no pun intended) but as you know I am from Wyoming; the state that yes, gives wolves predator status outside trophy hunt areas.(Yes,of course I know the price we paid for that) Does anyone here really believe that if we conduct grizzly hunting in a certain way, there will be no attempts to stop the hunt now and for much of the distant future? I get that there are quite a few hunters out there that give us all a bad name. All we can do is try our best, preach our ethics and hope. Truth is, the guy or gal that goes out there and does the most ethical grizzly hunt imaginable, will still be threatened and wished death upon by those that would stop our heritage at every turn.

The grizzly management in Wyoming will be conducted the same as wolves, mountain lions, etc, with sound science based management, public comment, meetings and Commission approval. I would guess if anyone tinkers with the application process in any way that seems biased or unaffordable towards anyone, there will be hell to pay for sure.

I can't speak for Montana. That's a whole different country.

 

[beginnerhunter]

I like the idea of having to go through a significant conservation course just to apply. Even if you never drew, the course would still benefit conservation and hunting. Of course, I think conservation should be part of high school curriculum.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I would be fine with a $50 nonrefundable drawing fee if and only if they did not allow bonus points for the grizzly bear draw. I have five children who hunt or will be hunting. If it is a straight lottery like Idaho has, they can wait until they can afford to pay for the fee themselves and still have a chance to draw in their lifetime. If FWP issues bonus points, it's going to suck big time to have to cough up that much money each year just to have as much chance as anyone else at a low percentage tag in their lifetime.

I know some of you think that drawing fees are too low and resident tag fees are too low, but with five hunters in our family this fall and me paying the same price for adults and kids along with drawing fees for eligible hunters, we will be funding FWP to the tune of over $900 this fall. Of course I'm not going to complain too much since my wife is going to be hunting moose in a good unit (14 years to draw) and my daughter and I will be hunting on good elk tags ( ten years and two years to draw) However, it is not chump change to fund the legal requirements of hunting with my family and prioritizing them being in a good position to draw premium tags in their lifetime. We don't go to Disneyland, the movies or ride the chairlift. We gave all that money to FWP.

 

[1_pointer]

I would be fine with a $50 nonrefundable drawing fee if and only if they did not allow bonus points for the grizzly bear draw. I have five children who hunt or will be hunting. If it is a straight lottery like Idaho has, they can wait until they can afford to pay for the fee themselves and still have a chance to draw in their lifetime. If FWP issues bonus points, it's going to suck big time to have to cough up that much money each year just to have as much chance as anyone else at a low percentage tag in their lifetime.

I know some of you think that drawing fees are too low and resident tag fees are too low, but with five hunters in our family this fall and me paying the same price for adults and kids along with drawing fees for eligible hunters, we will be funding FWP to the tune of over $900 this fall. Of course I'm not going to complain too much since my wife is going to be hunting moose in a good unit (14 years to draw) and my daughter and I will be hunting on good elk tags ( ten years and two years to draw) However, it is not chump change to fund the legal requirements of hunting with my family and prioritizing them being in a good position to draw premium tags in their lifetime. We don't go to Disneyland, the movies or ride the chairlift. We gave all that money to FWP.

You're sounding almost like a non-resident...


Regarding the rest of the discussion:
I can agree with Randy's opinions on the issue for the most part. I think science/population numbers should be as much of a driver of how many and where tags are issued as perceived public opinion.

 

[belly-deep]

I don't think anyone can argue this is a meat hunt and the costs should be low so people can feed their families. $50 sounds right to me.

 

[belly-deep]

Doubtful, you're applying for a special permit. Its a privilege to hunt there, not a right, and thus the regulations are set by the governing body. If you don't want to abide by those rules, don't apply.

Ok buddy, if you say so

 

[Point Creep]

I don't think anyone can argue this is a meat hunt and the costs should be low so people can feed their families. $50 sounds right to me.

$6,000 sounds about right for a non resident. Around 300lbs of succulent grizzly bear meat will come at a premium. $20/lb for the non resident and .15/lb for residents. Sounds about right.

 

[antlerradar]

It is not chump change to fund the legal requirements of hunting with my family and prioritizing them being in a good position to draw premium tags in their lifetime. We don't go to Disneyland, the movies or ride the chairlift. We gave all that money to FWP.

you made the wise decision.

 

[noharleyyet]

$6,000 sounds about right for a non resident. Around 300lbs of succulent grizzly bear meat will come at a premium. $20/lb for the non resident and .15/lb for residents. Sounds about right.

..sorta stifles that brothers in arms pitch doesn't it.

 

[grizzly_]

Ok buddy, if you say so

When I said, "If you don't want..." I was speaking generally and not about you personally. Hopefully that didn't come across wrong. No offense intended.

 

[grandejuan]

It makes sense to me to make a griz tag a once in a lifetime proposition. Make it a straight lottery and require something like a $300.00 resident fee and $4500.00 NR. That's a 15:1 NR:R ratio that's fair. Montana's resident fees for sheep, goats and moose are ridiculously low and should be raised anyway, but that's for another time. FWIW. GJ

 

[Matt R]

Focus as much of the hunting outside the DMA (demographic monitoring area), as for purposes of human-caused mortality stats such as used for possible relisting, bears in the DMA are ignored, almost that they don't even exist.

While a neophyte on this topic and being cognizant of the ramifications if things went wrong, one thought I’ve had is to purposely have this hunt take place within the DMA or even the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) outside of YNP. Perhaps this hunt could act as a bully pulpit of sorts championing the benefits hunting has on conservation as a whole as well as specifically with Grizzlies? Get the volunteerism and fundraising that routinely takes place in the hunting community on display with the non-hunting stakeholders and show that hunting is not going to push a species back on the ESA but actually make significant contributions to propagating the species. Perhaps the tags could be awarded via a raffle not unlike the AZ super raffle that allows all budgets to participate in the draw with all money generated going directly back to the conservation of Ursus arctos? This may be a bit too idealistic but something doesn’t seem right to me about hunting purposely being kept out of the DMA which stretches nearly from Bozeman, MT to Lander, WY.

 

[Big Fin]

The idea behind putting more tags outside the DMA is that in many years we exceed the human-caused mortality limits inside the PCA/DMA, both the total limit and the female sub-quota limit.

If either of those limits are hit there will be no hunting, as hunting is considered part of the human caused mortality. If those limits are exceeded in enough consecutive years, it is grounds to petition for relisting. I'm sure all agree that relisting is the worst possible outcome.

If we want more hunting opportunity, we need less human caused mortality. Every grizzly hit by a car, killed for nuisance issues, shot by a hunter as mistaken black bear or in self-defense, shot by an ag producer, etc is one less tag that could be part of the hunting quota. Hunting is the last part of the equation for allowed human caused mortality within the PCA/DMA. Expect there to be many years when no tags are allocated due to human-caused mortality limits having already been exceeded within the measuring areas. Hunting outside those areas could technically still occur even if closed within those areas.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Please bear with me(no pun intended) but as you know I am from Wyoming; the state that yes, gives wolves predator status outside trophy hunt areas.(Yes,of course I know the price we paid for that) Does anyone here really believe that if we conduct grizzly hunting in a certain way, there will be no attempts to stop the hunt now and for much of the distant future? I get that there are quite a few hunters out there that give us all a bad name. All we can do is try our best, preach our ethics and hope. Truth is, the guy or gal that goes out there and does the most ethical grizzly hunt imaginable, will still be threatened and wished death upon by those that would stop our heritage at every turn.

The grizzly management in Wyoming will be conducted the same as wolves, mountain lions, etc, with sound science based management, public comment, meetings and Commission approval. I would guess if anyone tinkers with the application process in any way that seems biased or unaffordable towards anyone, there will be hell to pay for sure.

I can't speak for Montana. That's a whole different country.

Fair points to be sure.

Yes, there will always be anti-hunters who do stupid things. But that's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about the person who thinks hunting is a good tool for wildlife management, but doesn't like trophy hunting. Having these kinds of bars set high means we keep that person on our side, rather than push them over to the anti-side. Hunters are a minority in America, and one only has to look at states with high urban populations to see what that disconnect to nature has done to sate wildlife management agencies, and how the balance of power swings at the federal level between administrations.

A calm, steady hand on the tiller is needed, and bowing to our base instincts puts us in turbulent water. Fin's course is solid, and keeps us from running aground.

 

[Wes Mantooth]

This point may have been covered earlier, but what are some of the proposed total harvest numbers being discussed (for the sake of this question, in Montana)? Trying to get my head wrapped around what that might look like in terms of total tags given, total hunter applications, proposed tag fees, season length, etc. for a Montana Grizzly hunt.

Interesting and charged topic for sure.

 

[Big Fin]

This point may have been covered earlier, but what are some of the proposed total harvest numbers being discussed (for the sake of this question, in Montana)? Trying to get my head wrapped around what that might look like in terms of total tags given, total hunter applications, proposed tag fees, season length, etc. for a Montana Grizzly hunt.

Interesting and charged topic for sure.

It will depend. Some years it will be zero, as the allowed human-caused mortality has already been met/exceeded and therefore no additional human-caused mortality will be allowed from hunting.

In years when the allowed human-caused mortality has not been met, it will still be a very small number. It will be a conservative number based on projections that will keep it under the human-caused mortality limits. Wyoming gets the majority of opportunity, as they have the most bears. Montana is next in line, followed by Idaho. I know they have done the allocation and if I recall correctly, it is something like 60%/30%/10% allocated to WY/MT/ID respectively.

I am sure the biologists and scientists have this projected and figured out, but I doubt MT will have more than three tags per season. If hunting is allowed outside the DMA/PCA, places where human-caused mortality has less consequence on management actions, Montana might be able to let out a few more tags and stay within the guidelines of Conservation Strategy.

Much like when wolves were delisted, a lot of people did not take the time to read the management plans, in this case the USFWS Conservation Strategy, and it resulted in a lot of misinformation and incorrect conclusions. For people truly interested in the topic and wanting to understand how hunting will/won't be allowed, I would suggest reading the CS at the link below.

https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/FINALCS.DRAFT_Feb_19_2016_FINAL.pdf

 

[Zach]

Doubtful, you're applying for a special permit. Its a privilege to hunt there, not a right, and thus the regulations are set by the governing body. If you don't want to abide by those rules, don't apply.

Isn't it a privilege to hunt period? Maybe all media should be restricted for hunting. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.

 

[KJH]

Nothing wrong with a $50 application fee. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Addicting]

So let's say 3 tags, $50 bucks, and no bonus point accruing sounds like they already have the mechanics of the tag system in place if they add it to the Super Tag drawing.