Griz in Colo.?

[Howie]

Whatcha think? Fact we Fiction.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Whatcha think? Fact we Fiction.

Fiction. 100% Fiction.

Colorado has lots of color phased bears and the vast majority of people including hunters can't tell the difference at distance.

 

[Zach]

Fiction. 100% Fiction.

Colorado has lots of color phased bears and the vast majority of people including hunters can't tell the difference at distance.

You doubt Adam Greentree???

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You doubt Adam Greentree???

Absolutely, he did not see a grizzly, although I think he thinks he saw one, i.e. I don't think he is lying, I just think he can't tell the difference.

There are individuals with decades of experience looking at bears that sometimes have a hard time differentiating between the two species, especially at a distance. If your looking at a big color phase black bear at some distance away with a spotter behavior is a much a give away as physical characteristics. Greentree has hardly any experience with bears, so I put as much faith in his account as some dude from Arkansas saying they saw a grizzly.

Here is greentree's "grizzly"... honestly, I think that Adam was hunting the high country, the height of krumholtz trees can be hugely deceiving, and that in fact that is your average 150lb Colorado sow. I've hunted and killed enough bears at this point to be humbled about identification and field judging size. Anybody with greentree's confidence doesn't know what they don't know.


I would venture that there is not a biologist/guide/hunter/etc out there that go 7 for 7 on identifying the following bears correctly from a spotter at this distance, 100% of the time, especially if they are just looking at a still image and not watching them move around for 30 min or so.

 

[Zach]

Sorry, forgot my sarcasm font...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sorry, forgot my sarcasm font...

I kinda figured... but this topic comes up enough so I decided I would just take a massive dump on it and move on.

My absolute favorite "grizzly bear proof"... "Dude I was riding a horse with my outfitter in XXXX mountains and I saw claw marks on a tree at my head level." Yeah no shit you idiot black bears climb trees... like even adult boars.


Borrowing this from @Khunter

 

[Zach]

I kinda figured... but this topic comes up enough so I decided I would just take a massive dump on it and move on.

We need to concentrate on more pertinent subject, like wolves!

 

[Sytes]

Fiction... For now. They're cute and cuddly - same as those wolves.

Care of the very scientific based organization, The Center for Biological Diversity;

and of course, their campaign (funded in part by Patagonia)

OUR CAMPAIGN

The Center advocates for an expansive and realistic recovery strategy for grizzly bears. First we filed petitions to recover bears in more of their historic range, including areas in Colorado and Utah, and to reintroduce bears into the Selway-Bitterroot area in Idaho. Finally we were forced to sue; our 2019 lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s failure to update the bears' federal recovery plan addresses the need for the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider additional areas where grizzlies once lived and can now be reintroduced.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Fiction... For now. They're cute and cuddly - same as those wolves.

Care of the very scientific based organization, The Center for Biological Diversity;

and of course, their campaign (funded in part by Patagonia)

Honestly, I would love to see G-bears reintroduced into Colorado... so I'm kinda with Yvon on this one.

 

[Sytes]

You're on the right track for that objective.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You're on the right track for that objective.

1. I like a ecosystem with a full suite of predators, albeit a suite that is full managed, but that, to me, is a different conversation.
2. G-bears have much lower fecundity than wolves, 3% versus 22% I'm way more concerned about wolves in Colorado than bears.

I think the spots highlighted, San Juans, Flat Tops and Uintas could definitely support a bear population, probably at the Cabinet-Yaak density maybe ~100 bears total in the the state a couple of decades after re-introduction.

 

[sbhooper]

Grizzlies aren't suppose to be in the Big Horn Mountains, either.

 

[Western Traveler1]

I absolutely believe grizzlies should be reintroduced; to California. Historical? It’s on their State flag. Start with the San Bernardino mountains and the Sierras. Proceed from there...

 

[jeremys4]

Hell ya see how the bear league in Tahoe feels when people are getting eaten

 

[bushman13]

I understand where you are coming from but I would default to the wisdom of our grandparents. There is a reason we didn't keep giant gators at the swimming hole, wolves and grizzlies at the ranch, and big sharks at the port. Because they will eat your ass. The former generations didn't get everything right, but I'm pretty sure they got this one correct.

1. I like a ecosystem with a full suite of predators, albeit a suite that is full managed, but that, to me, is a different conversation.
2. G-bears have much lower fecundity than wolves, 3% versus 22% I'm way more concerned about wolves in Colorado than bears.

I think the spots highlighted, San Juans, Flat Tops and Uintas could definitely support a bear population, probably at the Cabinet-Yaak density maybe ~100 bears total in the the state a couple of decades after re-introduction.

 

[Sytes]

@wllm1313 Curious of your position regarding Griz and wolves (also part of the "historical" location within Colorado). Well, not the wolves from what I gather of your current / past comment.

Do you feel there is a significant overpopulation of big game that could use some measure of additional apex predator activity in Colorado?

If it's for the historical locations as proposed by CBD why the personal discrepancy between wolves and griz? Granted I agree with the 700% increase in population wolves vs griz being re-introduced though if, for the sake of, "a full ecosystem", why one and not the other?

If it's for the basis, once human forced re-introduction of alleged ESA then, good luck fighting the same organizations (Patagonia/Yvon, CBD, et al) you support to get it into state managed hands? Or do I understand your position, you're opposed to State managed wildlife to include griz / wolves?

Above beat me to the other portion.

 

[Western Traveler1]

I think the spots highlighted, San Juans, Flat Tops and Uintas could definitely support a bear population, probably at the Cabinet-Yaak density maybe ~100 bears total in the the state a couple of decades after re-introduction.

Yes, because the target control numbers for Montana/Wyoming worked out great. I.E. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem...
I agree in principle but forget about controlling the total number. There seems to be no putting the genie back in the bottle...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@wllm1313 Curious of your position regarding Griz and wolves (also part of the "historical" location within Colorado). Well, not the wolves from what I gather of your current / past comment.

Do you feel there is a significant overpopulation of big game that could use some measure of additional apex predator activity in Colorado?

If it's for the historical locations as proposed by CBD why the personal discrepancy between wolves and griz? Granted I agree with the 700% increase in population wolves vs griz being re-introduced though if, for the sake of, "a full ecosystem", why one and not the other?

If it's for the basis, once human forced re-introduction of alleged ESA then, good luck fighting the same organizations (Patagonia/Yvon, CBD, et al) you support to get it into state managed hands? Or do I understand your position, you're opposed to State managed wildlife to include griz / wolves?

Above beat me to the other portion.

I don't there is a significant over population, however I think there is ample room in the ecosystem for Grizzly. Discrepancy is based solely on fecundity.

I think these numbers are pretty close, but pardon me if they are not.
~1000 bears in 1993 and now there are maybe 2000 bears
Same time period for wolves ~65 -> ~1800

Also, wolves have and will move into CO on their own, they don't need our help. On the other hand we aren't seeing a lot/any connectivity between the various grizzly population groups in MT, it could take 150+ years for grizzlies to make it to CO... and they would first have to establish populations in areas we don't want them.

That said once re-established it's would be an island population, and you would have to "island royal them"... ie continue to be involved in the process.

I support state management of all animals, period.

Lastly, I just like bears better. So unlike your NJ Cat lady I'm just gonna flat out say it, I like grizzlies, and I like them a whole lot more than wolves.

I understand where you are coming from but I would default to the wisdom of our grandparents. There is a reason we didn't keep giant gators at the swimming hole, wolves and grizzlies at the ranch, and big sharks at the port. Because they will eat your ass. The former generations didn't get everything right, but I'm pretty sure they got this one correct.

I don't entirely disagree... but they also did drive virtually every animal in NA to extinction from Canadian geese and turkeys to elk/deer/bighorns/goats to wolves and grizzlies/gators and even sharks. Some of these species like big horns we are still struggling to keep on the map. I don't think we can take anything from former generations about wildlife management, as for the last 50 years we have been busting our butts fixing their intentional or not scorched earth policy towards our native wildlife.

 

[LuketheDog]

100% Fact. There are grizzlies all over Colorado, in every wilderness area for sure, probably lots of national forest too. Take note out-of-staters, CPW is keeping it a secret because they want you to keep purchasing LOTS of OTC elk tags! You can't just ignore all those grizzly sightings every year, they can't all be black bears! It's a huge conspiracy...I bet...

 

[bushman13]

Totally agree and not following their direction on game management is obvious. When I was really little I saw the fallout in person, a deer track was something to get excited about. But as far as keeping dangerous predators off the landscape, they had good reasons that I would say are still very relevant. We filled the space as the top predator and there isn't a lot of room.

Game agencies tend to overcompensate on predator protection, so when they try an correct a sin from the past, they tend to over do it. Florida is classic example with sharks and gators. Protect them until you are overrun.

I don't there is a significant over population, however I think there is ample room in the ecosystem for Grizzly. Discrepancy is based solely on fecundity.

I think these numbers are pretty close, but pardon me if they are not.
~1000 bears in 1993 and now there are maybe 2000 bears
Same time period for wolves ~65 -> ~1800

Also, wolves have and will move into CO on their own, they don't need our help. On the other hand we aren't seeing a lot/any connectivity between the various grizzly population groups in MT, it could take 150+ years for grizzlies to make it to CO... and they would first have to establish populations in areas we don't want them.

That said once re-established it's would be an island population, and you would have to "island royal them"... ie continue to be involved in the process.

I support state management of all animals, period.

Lastly, I just like bears better. So unlike your NJ Cat lady I'm just gonna flat out say it, I like grizzlies, and I like them a whole lot more than wolves.



I don't entirely disagree... but they also did drive virtually every animal in NA to extinction from Canadian geese and turkeys to elk/deer/bighorns/goats to wolves and grizzlies/gators and even sharks. Some of these species like big horns we are still struggling to keep on the map. I don't think we can take anything from former generations about wildlife management, as for the last 50 years we have been busting our butts fixing their intentional or not scorched earth policy towards our native wildlife.