Topgun 30-06
Active member
Try finding a place where you can shoot one any cheaper than that!
WY Grizzly season proposal...
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
Try finding a place where you can shoot one any cheaper than that!
T Bone
Well-known member
Hope it happens and the lucky tag holders can have a quality, no drama hunt.
Idahoarcheryhunter
Well-known member
bingo, they will be dealing with so many lawsuits this will be stalled for a while imo.
JM77
Well-known member
High quota, I think not. When it comes to bears, count only the female harvest. Removal of males only increases cub survival. This is a very conservative quota.
Last edited:
805Bowhunter
Member
I am stoked to see Wyoming going forward with this. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the way that Wyoming handles its wildlife and hope that this can be an example for other states going forward. I am glad that this is happening now and that they are moving this forward thinking about all of the possible situations that can arise. I'm sure that they will hear it from the bear groups but, looks like they have a solid plan in place to fight them off. We need to have a well managed bear population/hunt model and glad that Wyoming is the one leading the charge here.
Last edited:
kimbersig
Active member
tack on Wyomings guide welfare requirement if you want to hunt in the wilderness and you will meet or exceed many hunts in Alaska. not saying $6k isn't unreasonable for the tag, resident price 10% of NR is acceptable to me as a good rule way of setting prices. but it will price out many as much of the areas are in wilderness and many will have to hire a guide or have a resident friend.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Its interesting to me...people whine about the fact that bears are recovered and we need a hunt.
A hunt is proposed and then the whining about the high tag fees and wilderness guide law start almost immediately.
Its a rare opportunity and should come with a high price tag.
A hunt is proposed and then the whining about the high tag fees and wilderness guide law start almost immediately.
Its a rare opportunity and should come with a high price tag.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Agree w/Buzz. It should be an expensive proposition. You're hunting an animal that was almost wiped out in the lower 48 a year or so after it comes off the Endangered Species List. Your opportunity is not nearly as important as the bear.
With that, I'm curious how Wyoming felt a 24 bear quota was reasonable and won't get tossed in court when it looks like the state is trying to take all of the allowed bears for the GYE in one season.
With that, I'm curious how Wyoming felt a 24 bear quota was reasonable and won't get tossed in court when it looks like the state is trying to take all of the allowed bears for the GYE in one season.
Old Ranger
Member
That was my question in my earlier post with this thread.
Yeah sure...females are a much greater negative of loss to a species such as the Grizzly. We all get that. And yes... Mature boars take out cubs for sure.
And while I earlier posted.. I have no facts and science in front of me to question the number. Certainly many factors contributed to this numerical value.
But just think a minute..... as many of us have followed the yearly mortality rnumbers of Grizzlies within the NW corner of Montana and certainly the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming combined..... Now Wyoming sets an initial number of allowable take of 24 bears in total from sport hunting??? Even realizing that number won't in all physical likelihood be met. Again... to my simple brain..."it just seems high"..
I fully support the evolution into a program where sport hunting of a Grizzly Bear in Montana or Wyoming comes to reality. Yes, it is an incredible opportunity. And should be special and not a notch or two above OTC hunting.
Yeah sure...females are a much greater negative of loss to a species such as the Grizzly. We all get that. And yes... Mature boars take out cubs for sure.
And while I earlier posted.. I have no facts and science in front of me to question the number. Certainly many factors contributed to this numerical value.
But just think a minute..... as many of us have followed the yearly mortality rnumbers of Grizzlies within the NW corner of Montana and certainly the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming combined..... Now Wyoming sets an initial number of allowable take of 24 bears in total from sport hunting??? Even realizing that number won't in all physical likelihood be met. Again... to my simple brain..."it just seems high"..
I fully support the evolution into a program where sport hunting of a Grizzly Bear in Montana or Wyoming comes to reality. Yes, it is an incredible opportunity. And should be special and not a notch or two above OTC hunting.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Wyoming was likely jumping in, knowing Montana was going to just "hold tight" for a while on a grizzly hunt. Good for Wyoming, bad for Montana.
So science be damned, full speed ahead? Wyoming's bears aren't Montana or Idaho's bears. By Wyoming setting this so high, it makes it so other states would have to manage for a larger population in order to meet the ESA requirements on population, and it means less opportunity for other resident hunters when the MT & ID seasons get rolling; then we'd still have issues related to WY's regulatory scheme and what could be viewed by courts as an excessive allowance.
I'm not against the hunt, and I know WGFD will do a great job managing bears for biological sustainability - just trying to figure out why it's such a high quota when it didn't need to be, and it seems to counter their earlier statements regarding the number of targeted animals.
That's an invitation for relisting or getting the WY hunt shut down.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Perhaps Wyoming realizes they are bears, not unicorns or some other mythical beast. Perhaps they realize they can manage them well, as they do all their other wildlife, in the face of the overly litigious.
Just guessing..
Just guessing..
Nobody is trying to make this out to be an issue of fairy farts, but of science. People want to see the rationale behind such a large quota, and as a Montanan, I want to know how their approach may impact grizzly hunting in Montana. I've known the WGFD bear managers for a long time and have a great amount of respect for them, and for the Wyoming approach to bear management. That they offered up this quota means they have justification. Let's see it.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I was thinking the allowable lethal take for the GYE (by all methods) was more like 50 or 60 to stay outside of the minimum number plus confidence interval. I could be way off, but that was my recollection. So out of curiosity what is that value?
TheDudeAbides
Well-known member
I actually think the number is low. With an estimated population of 750 and a threshold of 600 (100 above the recovery objective). I think that 50 would have been a better number. I think they decided to go with a more conservative number of 24.
Theoretically speaking
If half of the population is female = 375 bears
About half of them have young this year (187) with an average litter of 1.
If you say 50% of the young do not make it to winter.
Then you have 93 new bears in the population.
If you take 24 or 50 out of there, then theoretically it can be sustained.
It is theoretical, but I do think that 50 would be a better number.
T
tjones
Guest
This,,,,seems some are afraid to move forward with any hunt of a delisted specie. Some, including FWP learned nothing from the wolf delisting and following BS where everyone was skeert of killing to many and getting them relisted. Same-o same-o. Really the science was done during the delisting process, that’s what delisting is.
Was anyone surprised Montana "held tight?"
Last edited by a moderator:
Point Creep
Well-known member
No surprise. Whatever we do, we cannot pretend to be excited for the opportunity to hunt a grizzly bear. Don't smile or be seen smiling while thinking about the possibility of grizzly hunting.
In the event of a grizzly season in Montana, don't hunt near a road or within spotting scope view of one. Don't be with anybody else that might be helping. Do not take photographs of bears, especially a dead bear. If you jump into a photo with a dead bear, you can expect death threats and utter disgust by all who see it - even hunters. If you get a bear, make sure you pack it all out on your back, for many miles, and don't leave a scrap of it behind for the other wildlife and scavengers. You must eat all of it, personally, yourself. No sharing.
Whatever you do, make sure any grizzly bear you hunt, doesn't have a name or has ever been seen in Yellowstone park by the tourists and dirty hippies. If you were ever to take such a bear, there would be hell to pay in the letters to the editors, instagram, facebook, tweets and snapchats. And hunters don't need that.
"Fairy farts" pretty much does sum a lot of it up.
Yes. heaven forbid hunters recognize they aren't the only stakeholders in the world.
Truly, this decision to wait a year is one of the greatest tragedies of wildlife management in the history of the world. For shame. For shame.
The world is lost. Burn it all down.
Truly, this decision to wait a year is one of the greatest tragedies of wildlife management in the history of the world. For shame. For shame.
The world is lost. Burn it all down.
T
tjones
Guest
You and I both know the wait will be a damn site longer then a year, claiming anything different is silly.
