USFWS Proposes Delisting Grizzlies

[Nameless Range]

Why would you say moose don't need to be managed and then follow that up with management isn't even in your top five. What might the higher reasons be for you?

Maybe I wasn't clear.

The go-to argument for so many hunters when talking to nonhunters is that they appeal to hunting as an aspect of primarily management. As if their hunting is necessary for the management and well being of a species population. I think there are a lot of instances where that simply not true.

For example moose - if we didn't hunt moose in Montana for the next decade, I don't think we would be dealing with an overpopulation of moose and a degradation of moose habitat. Therefore, justifying the hunting of moose(for example) as a necessary act of a management tool would be an unconvincing argument to a non-hunter.

I could be wrong.

 

[shoots-straight]

Maybe I wasn't clear.

The go-to argument for so many hunters when talking to nonhunters is that they appeal to hunting as an aspect of primarily management. As if their hunting is necessary for the management and well being of a species population. I think there are a lot of instances where that simply not true.

For example moose - if we didn't hunt moose in Montana for the next decade, I don't think we would be dealing with an overpopulation of moose and a degradation of moose habitat. Therefore, justifying the hunting of moose(for example) as a necessary act of a management tool would be an unconvincing argument to a non-hunter.

I could be wrong.

"Management" to me means more than reducing numbers to keep populations in check. Primarily, yes, but it also means to enhance habitat for some species, relocations to perpetuate others. I agree that we might go without killing a moose for a decade without worry of over population, but still need management to help that species in order for it to thrive.

 

[RobG]

I see hunting G bears as an opportunity rather than being used as a tool for "management." Wildlife services, et al would be far more effective at killing problem bears or maintaining particular populations and there would be little chance of killing a well known bear that has not been causing problems.

I think moose, sheep and goat are similar in that hunting isn't really needed to keep their numbers in check. If it was just population control they would limit the take to females. Instead, the biologist calculate that the animals can sustain hunting pressure, and since people want to hunt them they will issue licenses. With G bears and wolves it also helps give the residents a sense of tolerance for them, and also at least some feeling of control.

I hope the hunt is set up so that the well-known bears aren't killed or it will be a huge black eye for hunters.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

"Management" to me means more than reducing numbers to keep populations in check. Primarily, yes, but it also means to enhance habitat for some species, relocations to perpetuate others. I agree that we might go without killing a moose for a decade without worry of over population, but still need management to help that species in order for it to thrive.

That's pretty much what I was aiming at when I asked that question of him!

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I see hunting G bears as an opportunity rather than being used as a tool for "management." Wildlife services, et al would be far more effective at killing problem bears or maintaining particular populations and there would be little chance of killing a well known bear that has not been causing problems.

I think moose, sheep and goat are similar in that hunting isn't really needed to keep their numbers in check. If it was just population control they would limit the take to females. Instead, the biologist calculate that the animals can sustain hunting pressure, and since people want to hunt them they will issue licenses. With G bears and wolves it also helps give the residents a sense of tolerance for them, and also at least some feeling of control.

I hope the hunt is set up so that the well-known bears aren't killed or it will be a huge black eye for hunters.

I agree and I think that's why it sounds like they are going to establish some kind of a "buffer zone" from the known tourist areas so another "Cecil" doesn't get shot if they do issue some tags in the future.

 

[----]

"Management" to me means more than reducing numbers to keep populations in check. Primarily, yes, but it also means to enhance habitat for some species, relocations to perpetuate others. I agree that we might go without killing a moose for a decade without worry of over population, but still need management to help that species in order for it to thrive.

I totally get this with some species, especially sheep. I just don't see it with g-bears though. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[HuntsByDesign]

"In a civilized and cultivated country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent [sic] people who protest against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wild life, are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger...creatures from total extermination." - Teddy Roosevelt

I think the greatest benefit of allowing a season for grizzlies will be increased attention from sportsmen. When there's an opportunity sportsmen (and women) usually want to grow that opportunity. It may be counter intuitive but if you want to truly save an animal, make him a game animal.

 

[hikingwithguns]

They mention Sierra Nevadas as a place grizz can be placed. Why not Santa Monicas and along Malibu? Plenty of "food source" there to support free-ranging grizz. Central Park and Westchester County would be a nice place, too, and along the Potomac drainage. I just know that will be successful in showing how well grizz thrive in a wide variety of habitats as long as is plenty to eat.

Yeah, time to re-wild Marin county. Plenty of slow moving herbivores for them to survive on