Feds discuss removing grizzlies from endangered species list

[Ithaca 37]

I'm applying for a tag!!

Feds discuss removing grizzlies from endangered species list
Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett will hold a media teleconference Thursday to discuss the possible delisting of the Yellowstone population of grizzly bears.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed in 2005 to remove grizzly bears from the threatened species list in the Greater Yellowstone area that includes eastern Idaho. that could lead the state to open a hunting season on grizzly bears, though the state has no immediate plans.

Grizzly bear numbers have risen from about 200 in the early 1980s to more than 600 bears today, growing at a 4 to 7 percent annual rate. They are spread across more than 9 million acres of habitat -- an area the size of Connecticut -- scattered across hundreds of miles of mountains, forests and rangeland in and around Yellowstone National Park.

Federal and state land and game managers restored the grizzly population by dramatically reducing human caused mortalities like poaching, increasing habitat by closing roads and phasing out sheep grazing in grizzly country. Sheep are incompatible in grizzly country because grizzlies won´t stop killing sheep.

Many of the rules protecting bears will remain in effect on public lands within what is called the Primary Conservation Area. Outside of this area — where many of Idaho´s bears have been tracked by federal biologists — Idaho´s Department of Fish and Game would be able to decide when to kill a marauding bear.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Ithaca, how exactly do you hunt grizzly bears? Seems like it'd be like finding a needle in a haystack.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's one good way:

The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the

mountains of Alaska for some sight-seeing. He was cruising along the campground in the Pope-

mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods.

A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a "Save the Whales" hat,

and a "To Hell with Bush" T-shirt, was screaming while struggling

frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10

foot grizzly bear.

As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Republican loggers ran

racing up. One quickly fired a .44 magnum into the bear's chest...

The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding, semiconscious

Democrat from the bear's grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers

finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck

while the third tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat.

As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. "I

give you my blessing for your brave actions!" he told them. "I heard there

was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic Environmental

activists but now I've seen with my own eyes that this is not true."

As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies "Who was

that guy?" "It was the Pope," another replied. "He's in direct contact with

heaven and has access to all wisdom.

"Well," the logger said, "he may have access to all wisdom but he sure

don't know anything about bear hunting!

By the way, is the bait holding up or do we need to go back to Massachusetts and grab another one?

 

[Washington Hunter]

LOL......... good one Ithaca.

So I wonder who on this board would make the best grizzly bait?

 

[Bambistew]

They are spread across more than 9 million acres of habitat -- an area the size of Connecticut

IMO this one of those kind of articles that when you add up the numbers it doesn't make sense, and really makes me wonder about the motive of the author.

Conn is roughly 3 mill acres, wonder if the author has ever been to either place? I think Yellowstone itself is close to the size of Conneticuit.

I wonder if they're talking about just the ID part of the GYE (Greater Yellowstone Eco), or what, but the GYE is closer to 20 million acres that the bears roam in. And from what I gather, the whole population in all three states is up for delisting. The GYE is rougly the size of South Carolina.

Now you tell me... If you were trying to visualize this 'area' don't you think there is a pretty big diffrence between the size of Conn vs the size of South Carolina?

Was this an honest mistake, or...

 

[BigHornRam]

Better hope they get delisted before Hillary gets in office, or you're going to be waiting a while longer for that tag Ithaca. In early Sept. grizzlies concentrate on White Bark Pine nuts, at least in the GYE. The're found at high elevations so that's where I'd focus my hunting efforts during that time. You'll know when you find a good spot. After that, gut piles will probably be your best bet.

 

[280]

BHR are you really as stupid as you sound?
The president, who ever it may be as no more say in the delisting process then your dumb ass,,the mangement plans are already in place, get a clue how the process works

 

[BigHornRam]

Dumb ass,

The President appoints the person that oversees the delisting process. You really think Hillary, or most any potential Democrat candidate in this upcoming election will appoint anyone that would be favorable to grizzly delisting in the GYE? I don't. To top it off, the USFWS is full of people that don't want the grizzly delisted. Management from the top will determine whether or not their views are implimented or not. If it the bears are not delisted by the end of Bush's term (and with the lawsuits intended to delay delisting, that is a given), the ball will be in the next administrations court, who ever that might be. Hillary as president = no grizzly delisting in the GYE. That is a fact.

 

[280]

obviously you have not read the grizzly mangement plan, please educate yourself, because I refuse to

 

[Ithaca 37]

280, Now you know why he's on my "idiot" list". Whoops! "ignore" list.

3/22
Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett is expected to announce the delisting of Yellowstone grizzly bears this morning.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed in 2005 to remove grizzly bears from the threatened species list in the Greater Yellowstone area, which includes eastern Idaho.

That could lead the state to eventually open a hunting season on grizzly bears, although the state has no immediate plans.

But environmentalists say Yellowstone grizzly bears still face a troubling future because of global warming. They are expected to challenge the delisting in federal court.

Yellowstone grizzlies depend on the seeds produced by the whitebark pine tree. Global warming is causing beetles to kill this key grizzly food source at alarming rates.

"Just like polar bears, grizzly bears are threatened by global warming," said Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold in a news release. "They live in a world of shrinking habitat due to warming weather. The Fish and Wildlife Service didn't see global warming coming and has no game plan for the loss of whitebark pines and the related harm to grizzlies."

Grizzly bear numbers increased from about 200 in the early 1980s to 700 bears today. They are spread across more than 9 million acres of habitat — an area the size of Connecticut with hundreds of miles of mountains, forests and rangeland in and around Yellowstone National Park.

They roam across a wide swath of eastern Idaho stretching from the Centennial Mountains north of Dubois to the Palisades Reservoir east of Idaho Falls.

Scarlett will make the announcement because Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne was prohibited from any involvement in the grizzly bear decision because he addressed the issue as Idaho’s governor. He has the same ethical restraint on decisions surrounding wolves.

 

[BigHornRam]

I'm talking about the DELISTING PROCESS, not the management plan. IT's post explains what lies ahead before delisting is reality.

"But environmentalists say Yellowstone grizzly bears still face a troubling future because of global warming. They are expected to challenge the delisting in federal court."

Would you agree that Republicans on a national level are beholden to oil interests 280? That Gail Norton was more open to public land oil exploration than the Clinton appointment? Now which party at a national level is beholden to enviromental extremists and animal rights kooks? Answer it honestly 280. Do you believe the lawsuits will be settled reguarding grizzly delisting in the next year and half? I don't.

 

[BigHornRam]

"So I wonder who on this board would make the best grizzly bait?"

My vote is for 280

 

[Big Fin]

This is great.

Back in 1999-2001, the governors of each state, MT, ID, and WY appointed 5 members each to sit on the "Governors' Grizzly Bear Roundtable." The governors were to pick from all interest groups to find people to work with the USFWS on creating the management plan.

I was one of the five MT people appointed by governor Marc Racicot. In those two and half years, the 15 roundtable members met multiple times in MT, WY, and ID for the purpose of helping the USFWS formulate the management plan that would result in eventual delisting.

I was the only appointed hunter in the group. There were many ag producers, four politicians, some timber guys, one oil and gas guy, and three environmentalists.

We had to get unanimous consent for any items to be passed. It was hard to get the 15 members to agree on the time of day, let alone a management strategy for grizzly bears in the GYE.

When it was all said and done, each person got to have one "do or die" point in the plan. The enviros wanted full habitat protection in the PCA (primary conservation area). The timber, oil, and ag guys wanted to no further expansion of the PCA boundary. I could agree with all of those.

My "do or die" point was that hunting would be an acceptable and expected management tool to be used by the states upon transfer of management to the states.

It was a hard pill to swallow for the enviros, but they bought into it if I would agree that their would be no further reduction in habitat protection.

So, hunting is part of the plan and the USFWS expects it to be part of the state plans.

Our meeting included some pretty "big cheese" from the Department of Interior and USFWS. Never did I find one person in the USFWS/DOI that was against delisting and hunting of bears, if populations could sustain it. Remember, we started this process with appointees from the Clinton Administration and ended with Bush appointees. I could see nothing in the process affected by the change of appointees.

The reality is the USFWS/DOI has laws to follow. There studies show the bear population has reached the point of full recovery as defined under the rules they must follow.

Will there be lawsuits? You bet, and lots of them.

Will the states and USFWS prevails? They should, if they have good attorneys and stick to the massive amount of scentific data they showed us demonstrating why delisting should occur.

Will we ever get to hunt them? I hope so, but the plan has limits on average annual female human caused mortaility. In most years, vehicle accidents, shooting of nuisance bears, self-defense, etc. result in female mortaility that would fill the quota and result in NO allowed hunting mortality (whether male or female).

I am glad to see the USFWS/DOI going foward with it. Many of us spent a lot of time in meetings learning more about Yellowstone Grizzly Bears than I ever wanted to know. If they had junked the whole notion, it would have been hard to convince me that the USFWS was serious about any delistings from the Endangered Speciies list.

I came away from it very impressed with the biologists that the USFWS has working on the topic. Nearly every one of those biologists were hunters. After meetings, we would go for beers. That is were you really learn where these folks are coming from. They were all good folks who want the states to take over this headache.

My biggest concern is Congress caving into pressure and passing some stupid new law that would tie the hands of the USFWS.

Happy Hunting!

 

[pa mt man]

"I came away from it very impressed with the biologists that the USFWS has working on the topic. Nearly every one of those biologists were hunters. After meetings, we would go for beers."


So we finally find the bar stool biologists Gunner is always talking about.

Just kidding Big Fin. Thanks for the post. It makes me believe there will be a season on bears some day.

 

[BigHornRam]

Good post Big Fin. In the USFWS's massive amount of data, did they cover the presumed threat to the Whitebark Pine nut supply? That looks to be the trump card the enviro's are going to play to block delisting. Would you venture a guess as to how long the lawsuit process will take to play out? Thanks.

 

[Big Fin]

BHR:

They did cover the White Bark Pine. It is not much of a threat to the Yellowstone Grizzlies, as they have the highest percentage of carion in their diet of any group of studied grizzly bears. Their over reliance on carion (both natural and hunter caused) makes them less dependent upon Whitebark Pine.

This is the normal "sky is falling" response that opponents use, as there is damage to the trees that could cause a reduction to the White Bark Pine supplies.

The IGBST (Inter-agency Grizzly Bear Study Team) and the other biologists assured us that the Whitebark Pine issue is not a significant enough threat to the G bear population to prevent delisting.

Relisting criteria is in the plan, in the event huge negative changes occur in the population. This is good, as it vests all of us in the idea that keeping a viable G bear population is the best way to prevent relisting. Opponents do not like to mention this, as it is the best safety net for the bears, and when people actually read the plan and understand that their is relisting criteria, their opposition to delisting is less.

There are many other issues, such as genetic isolation, human encroachment, reduced cutthroat trout numbers, competition from wolves, and many more that opponents use.

The opponents came to all the open house meetings in the three states and gave these reasons that the bears are still at risk. The biologists had an answer for every single issue brought forth by these opponents. Not stuff they were making up out of thin air, but data from some sort of study that was performed.

There is no other G bear population that has been studied to the extent the Yellowstone population has been studied. The data supporting delisting in amazingly strong and very in depth. Opponents are looking for the "Quick sound bite" reasons that they can use to raise more money for the obvious reasons.

When the public comment period was held in Bozeman, I was the only person of the many who spoke who was in favor of delisting. The opponents, and there were many, all had the same "soundbite" reasons that have all been addressed by the study teams.

Fortunately, the local reporter covering the hearing is a hunter and friendly to our cause, so he laid out a lot of facts in his newpaper articles covering the delisting story. I doubt other locations had the benefit of reporter as informed as he is.

The USFWS told everyone at these public hearings what the facts were and distributed all the data anyone could ask for. They told people to comment as they wanted, but that delisting would be science-based and not a popular vote. It appears that by going forward with delisting, they actually meant that, as the comments against delisting heavily outnumbered comments for delisting.

Anyhow, I could go on forever about this topic, but I would much prefer to talk about the MT bighorn sheep tag I will draw this year, or the AZ elk tag that must be lost in the mail.

Happy Hunting!

 

[BigHornRam]

Thanks for the detailed reply Big Fin. The sportsmen's interest was represented well by you. Thank you! This mornings paper mentions the congressional intervention play you mentioned earlier. I hope court's decisions are based on science, not politics and emotion. After all, as you stated, it is in the sportsmens best interest to keep the grizzly population at a healthy number. Good luck on the MT Bighorn draw.