Grizzly Bear hunting approved in Wyoming

[Sbbruin 21898]

Quote

HELENA, Mont. — The first large-scale hunt for grizzly bears in 43 years in the Lower 48 states is set to take place this September. The Wyoming Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to allow hunters to shoot as many as 22 grizzlies east of Yellowstone National Park.

Two weeks ago, the state of Idaho announced the first grizzly season since 1974, just before the Yellowstone grizzly population was listed as an endangered species. Idaho, though, will allow just one grizzly bear to be killed.

Montana has decided to forgo a grizzly bear season this year.

The hunt has been carefully planned to protect the species, officials say. “Wyoming is committed to ensuring a recovered population,” said Scott Talbott, director of the state’s Game and Fish Department.

Hunting season on grizzlies in Wyoming comes a year after the federal Fish and Wildlife Service lifted Endangered Species Act protection for the population of bears in the Yellowstone area. It found that their numbers have grown from fewer than 150 in 1975 to more than 700 bears in and around the park, and are recovered.

There is no hunting in Yellowstone National Park, where grizzlies are still protected. There were numerous meetings between state and Yellowstone officials over how to conduct the hunt so that park visitors can still enjoy bear watching.

 

“There are semifamous bears and bear viewing is a big industry,” said Kerry Gunther, a bear management specialist with Yellowstone National Park. “Our biggest concern is visitors along roads, and so Wyoming put a buffer on hunting around roads.”

There is vehement opposition to the resumption of grizzly hunting for several reasons. Some suspect that the bear counts may be inflated and that increased mortality, in combination with food supply reductions from a warmer and drier climate, could cause numbers to plummet.

Grizzly bears are taken as trophies, not for sustenance. Opponents say hunting the bears is cruel, because they are very smart, and according to experts, have distinct personalities. Some 200 tribal nations opposed the hunt of what they believe is a sacred animal and call for the bears to be relocated to tribal lands.

However, in addition to many biologists and some environmentalists, support for the hunting season comes from outfitters and ranchers, many of whom have to live with the bear day-to-day and deal with livestock depredation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has now begun the process of delisting the only other large population of grizzly bears in the Lower 48, in the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem, in and around Glacier National Park, where some 800 bears are believed to roam.

Several lawsuits against the hunt have already been filed, and there is a possibility that the season will be postponed or canceled.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/science/grizzly-bears-wyoming-hunt.html

 

Sorry, but trophy hunting is fucked up.  Deer, elk, etc, fine.  But grizzlies for sport?  Fuck you.  And my grandfather was a major trophy hunter.  He shot grizzlies, zebras, and every manor of animal.  But I hope we have evolved since then.  I'm sure there are plenty on here that are fine with it though.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

No, we haven’t. This country and world are still full of dumbfucks trying to overcompensate for their small peckers.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

I’m ok with it, as long as the only weapons you are allowed is a muzzle loader, a flintlock pistol and a knife.  

[Brisketexan 105438]

I'm a hunter, but I'm not down with predator hunts.

Hell, we used to have grizzlies all the way down to Texas and even Mexico (seriously).  I'd rather see them captured and used to re-populate areas where they used to range, if possible.

[XYZ 2154]

Can you eat them?

[Upgrayedd 5821]

[Guest]

Can you hunt them from Bell Helicopters with AR's? If not, I'm out.

J/K. This seems like a messed up idea and venture. If it was for population control that's fine but for pure sport, it doesn't pass the stomach test from me. y'all have fun with your Build-a-bear for rednecks hunting sessions though.

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

I would be fine for population control but less than 1,000 of them makes it seem like it’s about the money. 

[HenryJames 66188]

42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hell, we used to have grizzlies all the way down to Texas and even Mexico (seriously).  

Flick says he saw some grizzly bears near Pulaski's candy store!

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

28 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I would be fine for population control but less than 1,000 of them makes it seem like it’s about the money. 

Home range for a female is 70 square miles or so. Males 300-500 square miles. It doesn't take a whole lot of bears to fill an area up, and they can cause problems with human interactions. I wouldn't hunt one personally unless it was part of my job as a biologist, but I don't have a problem with then allowing limited hunting for others if it brings in revenue for a job that would likely otherwise cost the state money.

[CooterBrown 18032]

I’m rooting for the bears to viciously kill some hunters.

[RPM 26360]

1 hour ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I would be fine for population control but less than 1,000 of them makes it seem like it’s about the money. 

This. Bears are not cohabitable with humans.

[RoundRobin 828]

Won't someone please think of the pic-a-nic baskets?

[deadshank 24653]

40 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I’m rooting for the bears to viciously kill some hunters.

As opposed to killing them softly with his song?

 

[deadshank 24653]

2 hours ago, XYZ said:

Can you eat them?

Bear meat is greasy.  Some love it.  Doesn't taste like chicken. 

[SimonBolivar 10960]

[Kennythetiger 9479]

2 hours ago, XYZ said:

Can you eat them?

Ask Kyrie.  He’ll eat anything  

 

[clapclapclap 9000]

2 hours ago, XYZ said:

Can you eat them?

After they eat you?

[yoshi 137]

I need a new rug for in front of the fireplace.  

[bolverk 29728]

Serious question about this whole thing: why?

If they kill cattle, pay the fucking rancher for his loss. IMHO, the potential threat of losing a species to a fungible cow is what's in the balance. The whole scheme seems designed to just reward small pecker people with some sort of "rewarding" compensation.

[Gil Bang 26048]

the bears can smell the menstruation

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Serious question about this whole thing: why?

If they kill cattle, pay the fucking rancher for his loss. IMHO, the potential threat of losing a species to a fungible cow is what's in the balance. The whole scheme seems designed to just reward small pecker people with some sort of "rewarding" compensation.

Has it ever occurred to you that they might not just kill cattle when they start pushing up against the cities and towns? And there is no more threat of losing the species than there is for hunting deer, otherwise this wouldn't even be on the table.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I would be fine for population control but less than 1,000 of them makes it seem like it’s about the money. 

It's AAAAAAAAlways about the money my man.

[HenryJames 66188]

3 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Has it ever occurred to you that they might not just kill cattle when they start pushing up against the cities and towns? And there is no more threat of losing the species than there is for hunting deer, otherwise this wouldn't even be on the table.

[Macanudo 13017]

11 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

I’m rooting for the bears to viciously kill some hunters.

Yep.

[Lazarus Bocanegra 306]

[Gene Parmesan 4016]

I'm no hunter, but playing devil's advocate a bit wouldn't the revenue simultaneously benefit conservationism?  It's fucked up that they have to sacrifice a few bears for a shit load of cash, but that is way down the list on really fucked up shit in this world.

[markstanco 12627]

Definitely above some of the chicks vic bangs.

[thrillhammer 684]

thanks trump

[Orange&White 5539]

If you're gonna kill a bear, kill a GRIZZZLLLYY!

 

[686 3451]

I'm going to run down the Steve Rinella talking points here:

Point 1:  Hunting and Fishing license/tag sales basically fund state fish and wildlife agencies (which manage conservation efforts). Folks who drive through Yellowstone for a day or two and then rail against hunting don't help. Hunters that are buying tags that cost between ~$1000 and over $100,000 (governor's sheep tags), buy fishing licenses, and pay additional taxes on firearms and fishing gear fund the agencies that actually conserve wildlife. Hunting participation numbers are going down nationwide. The money has to come from somewhere. Running down hunters is basically cutting off your nose to spite your face if you like being able to see wild places with lots of animals for free.

Point 2: If humans live somewhere, we alter the environment. We build roads, houses, farms, yards, schools, towns, dams, bridges, etc. and drive vehicles all over the place. Additionally, we want our kids, pets, and stuff to be safe so we build a lot of fences. All of that alters the ecosystem. Grizzlies used to exist in much higher numbers across the US because the environment would support them (one factor is that we essentially eliminated buffalo, which, IIRC, frozen buffalo carcasses were a significant early spring food source). If we alter the ecosystem (by existing in it), the mature thing to do is to manage it from there on out.  That's what state game and fish agencies do, and they are pretty good at it.

Point 3: Specifically regarding species management, some species "regulate" their population numbers better than others. If we don't help manage population numbers, they tend to expand quickly when conditions are good, and then crash catastrophically a few seasons later when they have over-utilized food sources and conditions are bad. Right now hunters pay for the opportunity to help manage those numbers. If we stop hunting, we will have to pay game agency employees to kill animals.

Point 4: Wolves and Grizzlies get all the "love" from anti-hunters, but they really aren't in a compromised population situation, there are populations that are facing much bigger challenges that the anti's don't give a shit about. Sheep, Woodland Caribou, Sage Grouse, etc. There are about a dozen caribou left in the lower 48. "Biologists who work with the Kalispel and Kootenai Native American tribes are concerned that the caribou will disappear before they can act, and urge more aggressive support from the public and agencies. “Wolves and grizzly bears suck up a lot of the money,” said Bart George, a biologist with the Kalispel tribe. “Where is the support for this charismatic species?”"

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Lazarus Bocanegra said:

Gettin' all dusty up in here.

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

I bet Leonardo DiCaprio is behind all of this. 

[686 3451]

Here's grizzly historic and current ranges:

 

 

Here's bison range as of 1896:

 

Notice any overlap? If we cut every fence and highway from Saskatchewan to the Rio Grande, burned down the buildings and got out of the way, in 100-200 years bison and grizzlies would probably again inhabit their native range. What we've done to the bison equals or exceeds what we've done to grizzlies. Why don't the bison get any love from the anti's? 

Sad fact: we colonized the "Serengeti" of the western hemisphere and fucked it up bad. We paved paradise and put a parking lot (to a certain degree). Luckily, hunters and anglers are willing to pay big, big money to try and reverse some of this via both tag purchases and DU, RMEF, etc. donations, which are used buy up a lot of land and put it in trust for conservation and re-population. We have more white-tailed deer than ever. Turkeys are in a great spot population wise. We have Elk in the Appalachians for the first time in over a hundred years. Hunters probably do more to affect positive wildlife environments than any other group, and they get shit on by a big portion of the public that enjoy the benefits as "free riders". 

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

6 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Has it ever occurred to you that they might not just kill cattle when they start pushing up against the cities and towns? And there is no more threat of losing the species than there is for hunting deer, otherwise this wouldn't even be on the table.

There are literally orders of magnitude differences in the population. 

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

4 minutes ago, 686 said:

Here's grizzly historic and current ranges:

 

 

Here's bison range as of 1896:

 

Notice any overlap? If we cut every fence and highway from Saskatchewan to the Rio Grande, burned down the buildings and got out of the way, in 100-200 years bison and grizzlies would probably again inhabit their native range. What we've done to the bison equals or exceeds what we've done to grizzlies. Why don't the bison get any love from the anti's? 

Sad fact: we colonized the "Serengeti" of the western hemisphere and fucked it up bad. We paved paradise and put a parking lot (to a certain degree). Luckily, hunters and anglers are willing to pay big, big money to try and reverse some of this via both tag purchases and DU, RMEF, etc. donations, which are used buy up a lot of land and put it in trust for conservation and re-population. We have more white-tailed deer than ever. Turkeys are in a great spot population wise. We have Elk in the Appalachians for the first time in over a hundred years. Hunters probably do more to affect positive wildlife environments than any other group, and they get shit on by a big portion of the public that enjoy the benefits as "free riders". 

 

Exactly. That dentist that shot that lion should be a Senator. 

[686 3451]

7 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Exactly. That dentist that shot that lion should be a Senator. 

I don't know much about that guy, but the reduction in lion hunting after he killed Cecil really fucked up reserve management in Zim and elsewhere:

"... management from Zimbabwe’s Bubye Valley Conservancy was considering a controversial move to cull upwards of 200 lions out of a rough population of 500 in order to ensure the reserve’s wildlife biodiversity.

It was also reported that since the growing calls to end trophy hunting, due in large part to the killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park last year, conservancies like Bubye are no longer seeing the funding necessary to adequately cover conservation costs, which includes fence maintenance, financing local schools and health clinics, and providing meat to local people."

link

In Africa, "if it pays it stays". African countries/people are trying to feed their families off the land, build roads, industry, economies, homes, commercial agriculture, etc.; not so different that the US was 50-200 years ago. All of that can't coexist with unfettered wildlife populations. People in the US frequently look down on African wildlife management and commercial development, but that continent is industrializing in a similar way to the 19-20th century US, with probably less overall wildlife extirpation (and probably roughly equal or less genocide to native human populations). 

[bularry1 23]

don't people hunt bears frequently in Alaska and areas of Canada?   What is the big deal about this?

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

6 minutes ago, 686 said:

I don't know much about that guy, but the reduction in lion hunting after he killed Cecil really fucked up reserve management in Zim and elsewhere:

"... management from Zimbabwe’s Bubye Valley Conservancy was considering a controversial move to cull upwards of 200 lions out of a rough population of 500 in order to ensure the reserve’s wildlife biodiversity.

It was also reported that since the growing calls to end trophy hunting, due in large part to the killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park last year, conservancies like Bubye are no longer seeing the funding necessary to adequately cover conservation costs, which includes fence maintenance, financing local schools and health clinics, and providing meat to local people."

link

In Africa, "if it pays it stays". African countries/people are trying to feed their families off the land, build roads, industry, economies, homes, commercial agriculture, etc.; not so different that the US was 50-200 years ago. All of that can't coexist with unfettered wildlife populations. People in the US frequently look down on African wildlife management and commercial development, but that continent is industrializing in a similar way to the 19-20th century US, with probably less overall wildlife extirpation (and probably roughly equal or less genocide to native human populations). 

Wow. I had no idea. You've really changed my mind, guy with a slutty Avatar avatar. 

[Kennythetiger 9479]

Spoiler

54 minutes ago, 686 said:

Here's grizzly historic and current ranges:

 

 

Here's bison range as of 1896:

 

Notice any overlap? If we cut every fence and highway from Saskatchewan to the Rio Grande, burned down the buildings and got out of the way, in 100-200 years bison and grizzlies would probably again inhabit their native range. What we've done to the bison equals or exceeds what we've done to grizzlies. Why don't the bison get any love from the anti's? 

Sad fact: we colonized the "Serengeti" of the western hemisphere and fucked it up bad. We paved paradise and put a parking lot (to a certain degree). Luckily, hunters and anglers are willing to pay big, big money to try and reverse some of this via both tag purchases and DU, RMEF, etc. donations, which are used buy up a lot of land and put it in trust for conservation and re-population. We have more white-tailed deer than ever. Turkeys are in a great spot population wise. We have Elk in the Appalachians for the first time in over a hundred years. Hunters probably do more to affect positive wildlife environments than any other group, and they get shit on by a big portion of the public that enjoy the benefits as "free riders". 

 

 

Pretty neat how the tatanka stayed between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Kennythetiger

[F250 28826]

14 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

I’m rooting for the bears to viciously kill some hunters.

Depending on the constraints placed on the hunt, there is a very good chance someone is going to get mauled to death.

I'm ok with issuing limited tags but no guides, no one to help you out when the bear charges you and you piss your pants. If you are allowed you should have to risk life and limb.

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

#TeamGrizzly

 

[686 3451]

[Upgrayedd 5821]

46 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

#TeamGrizzly

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Can you imagine being in the Lewis and Clarke expedition, and seeing a full grown grizzly for the first time ? !!

[Homercles 10206]

Gentle Ben ruined it for everyone

 

 

 

[tbone_ 14181]

Never understood the desire to kill things for sport.

[workswithseed 2119]

18 hours ago, XYZ said:

Can you eat them?

I heard bear jerky is awesome.

[Brisketexan 105438]

28 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I heard bear jerky is awesome.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

Never understood the desire to kill things for sport.

20 yr old me did. 40 yr old me doesn't.

If the grizzly population is becoming an ecological problem, then I'm ok with thinning them out a little. But I suspect, despite 686's post, that this isn't about that. This is about appeasing the hunting and ranching lobbies.