Fat-Assed ATV Riders Poach Griz in Idaho Panhandle

[YourRoyalHighness]

Fat-Assed ATV riders PLUS Roads EQUALS Dead Endangered Species

Logging Roads in Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle And Lolo National Forests Linked To Increased Grizzly Bear Deaths

On November 8, 2004 conservation groups appealed to federal courts to protect critically endangered grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk region of northwest Montana, northern Idaho and northeast Washington. Seeking to have new rules overturned for the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle and Lolo National Forests, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and The Lands Council want to shut down a labyrinthine network of logging roads that they feel are responsible for increased grizzly bear deaths.

A press release from the Alliance notes, “Amazingly, the same agency which just a few years ago cited the existing road network as a leading factor in its 'warranted for endangered status' finding, now says this same network will not jeopardize grizzly bears. This status quo approach is a dead-end road to grizzly bear extinction.” In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found reclassification of the grizzly population necessary owing to an extremely low population of bears – estimated at only 30-40 – in the Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk region. Some researchers claim that with such a small population the grizzly could go extinct locally within 100 years.

Since 1999, 19 grizzly bear deaths have been record in the Cabinet-Yaak, including 7 females and several cubs. In the Selkirk there have been at least 13 deaths, including 3 females. Government scientists estimate that 72% of the confirmed grizzly deaths in the Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk region are human-caused, and that no less than 77% of those deaths occurred within 1/3 mile from an open road.

Michael Garrity of the Alliance states, “The science clearly shows that roads harm grizzly bears, and we know there are over 26,000 miles of logging roads on these national forests. Despite these facts, the Forest Service’s new plan essentially fixes the level of total roads in place and finds it will not harm grizzly bears. The Forest Service could create a lot more jobs and save taxpayers a lot of money by restoring this area rather than building even more roads and having money losing timber sales in this critical grizzly bear habitat. The four timber sales named in our lawsuit are expected to lose over $7 million.”

 

[cjcj]

Your royal high ass...are you saying poaching wouldn`t exist without roads? Kinda like criminals and gun laws? poaching is already illegal. duh. Just tell them to stop it right now! and quit that spotlighting and driving them roads..............they will listen for sure. hump |oo |oo

 

[Erik in AK]

cj,
I am not one to agree w/the royal formerly known as gunner....but......in all your years have you ever known poachers to get out of the truck and h ump the boonies? Roads are part and parcel to poaching and always have been.

 

[cjcj]

Erik thats not what i`m saying... what i`m saying is lazy fat-assed poachers will break the law no matter what.... close the roads won`t stop them.

 

[ringer]

The only thing a poacher likes more than an open road is a closed one with a nice ground cover growing up. No enforcement tracks and no real hunters to go by and bust them. Just like drug dealers wanting the dark corners. Closing logging roads will not help this problem IMO.

 

[Elkhunter]

So are you saying there is as much poaching in areas that are harder to get to than areas that have complete access?

 

[Ten Bears]

EH, probably, but just not as witnessed.

Where did it say ATV riding poachers? Grizzlys a big on scavenging, and there are some highways and railroad systems up there known for killing a lot of deer and elk. Would you suspect that maybe some of those bears could have been hit while picking up a free meal?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, So you think there's just as much poaching in a Wilderness Area as an area that is full of roads, trails, and vehicle access. You just don't think it's witnessed as much in the Wilderness Area.

What planet are you from, anyway? Didn't your leaders teach you anything before they sent you here?

I'm going to have to put that in your top ten list of dumbest posts ever, and that's a hard list to get on to.

Next you'll be telling us that if we effectively close roads and trails to vehicles the rate of poaching will stay the same-----it's just not going to be witnessed as much.

You'll try any BS to keep roads open, won't you?

 

[Ten Bears]

I, I don't think you or your closet queen freind know much about roads systems in north idaho. I say that poaching PROBABLY occurs equally on a per capita basis is wilderness areas as it does in roaded areas. Dispute that with facts please. For poachers in the wilderness, the best part of the wilderness is they know that there are fewer people there to see what they're doing.

Your top ten list was full many moons ago. I'm thinking about archiving it by the month now.

 

[mtmiller]

I say that poaching PROBABLY occurs equally on a per capita basis is wilderness areas as it does in roaded areas.

Per capita based on what?

I think they got you on this one. Careful how you answer.

 

[Oak]

I think what he's trying to say is that there's equal poaching in each area per hunter hunting that area.

Following that line of thinking, and some other things TB has said, one can conclude:

1. Poaching done on a per hunter basis is equal over all areas.

2. Closing roads excludes a lot of people from those areas.

3. Poaching would be reduced in areas where roads are closed.

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

True OAK, to the extent that you want to exclude hunters, and by excluding hunters, you guarantee the securtiy of those that poach in wilderness areas.

...there’s still too many unreported cases of poaching occurring across the state, with some of the most egregious cases taking place along the Colorado-Utah line, in some of the most remote country this state has.

http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20048
That's how you end up with programs like this one.

 

[Oak]

TB, the person quoted there meant that not many people live out in that country. If you've ever spent any time there, you know that it's heavily drilled for gas out there. You can get just about anywhere with all the resulting roads.

You won't be excluding hunters that are willing to get off their fat asses and walk.

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

2. Closing roads excludes a lot of people from those areas.


Oak

 

[Oak]

Following that line of thinking, and some other things TB has said, one can conclude:

 

[mtmiller]

:d :d :d :d :d

 

[Ten Bears]

The majority of our hunt unit 1 in the panhandle is the very unit that the closet queen in referring to, and that unit is not only very popular for hunting, but the majority of the road systems are closed to motorized travel during hunting seasons. I have yet to see anything that relates ATV's or poaching to "72% of the confirmed grizzly deaths in the Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk region are human-caused". Human caused how? Since the CQ doesn't post links, it's hard to verify the source of the information.

As to poaching in the wilderness; if there are fewer people, there should be fewer animals poached, but greater security for the poachers to hide their crime, therefore even fewer cases of the crime being detected. Where a roadside poacher must worry about the next person coming down the road or who is even hunting in the area, the wilderness poacher in many cases would know most everybody hunting in the vicinity.

...there’s still too many unreported cases of poaching occurring across the state, with some of the most egregious cases taking place along the Colorado-Utah line, in some of the most remote country this state has.

I have to take this article at face value. That is why I posted the whole article, and the link.

 

[Ten Bears]

A review of studies by McLellen et al. (1999) was conducted on the rates and causes of grizzly bear mortalities in British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Washington and Idaho concluded that 77%-85% of the mortalities were human caused. The reasons for the mortalities varied from the different jurisdictions. In Canada, legal hunting of grizzly bears accounted for 39%-44% of the deaths. In Montana, where it is not legal to hunt grizzly bears, the majority of grizzly bears were killed by ungulate hunters in self defense, hunters mistaking a grizzly bear for a black bear and for malicious reasons. It was found that poaching was rarely the reason for radiocollared grizzly bears to be killed.
http://www.grizzlybear.org/Poaching.htm

“The number of elk hunters in Wyoming in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone... were estimated and compared to grizzly bear mortalities, both verified and probable from 1988 to 1997 to determine if bear mortality is correlated to hunter numbers. The data show there is little relationship between hunter numbers and human-caused grizzly mortality.” (Emphasis added). Apparently the greater number of hunters has not been causing the escalating bear mortalities,.... http://www.conservationforce.org/info/get_hunter_art.cfm?art_id=13

Grizzly bear mortality research
An analysis of known grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies Ecosystem between 1971-1996 illustrates some of the ways, and the extent to which, humans influence grizzly bear deaths in this area.

627 of 639 known deaths were human-caused
85% of 462 human-caused deaths with known locations occurred within 500m of a road or development, or within 200m of a trail
in the National Park study area (Banff, Kootenay and Yoho National Parks), there were 118 recorded human-caused deaths. Problem wildlife control accounted for 72% of these, followed by highway and railway at 19%
http://www.whyte.org/bears/conflict.html#bears

 

[1_pointer]

As to poaching in the wilderness; if there are fewer people, there should be fewer animals poached, but greater security for the poachers to hide their crime, therefore even fewer cases of the crime being detected. Where a roadside poacher must worry about the next person coming down the road or who is even hunting in the area, the wilderness poacher in many cases would know most everybody hunting in the vicinity.

Your argument is weak at best. Just cut the line... Following that logic, crime rates should be exponentially higher in BFE, WY (least densely populated state in Lower 48) than in Los Angeles, CA.

 

[Quiet_One]

ok if a certain area has been where theres lots t hunt it been abused one to many times close it what i think i dont know what im talkin about or anything about this stuff but i try i dont want arguement or be in one just if guy a certain one messed up to much well if they can make sure he cant hunt anymore or hope law gets em sure if they do it right he wont hunt in that area or give em big fine he learn i hope i waana hunt next year i like deer would love hunt bear but none here too bad i like comfy carpet or just have hide put up i use work for taxidermist but only learned so much hope hunt nezt year i learn more know wat i talk about lol have funn guys yes im girl i know some dont know lol