Grizz hunting is over
- Thread starter ClearCreek
- Start date
HONEYBADGER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 776
https://buckrail.com/cheney-introduc...al-protection/
Only way to avoid these activist judges from ruling the free world.
Only way to avoid these activist judges from ruling the free world.
What are you using as a base that he is an activist judge? Is there some history of him legislating from the bench or is it just based on this one decision? I'll be honest and say I had never heard his name before this case.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Only a matter of time until it also becomes the only way to get around the inconvenience of science-based management. I disagree with the de-listing reversal, but I don't like legislative management of wildlife one bit. That's going to bite us all in the ass at some point.
If it's impossible to de-list a species via the Act, the Act needs to be fixed.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
SandyCreek
Active member
correct.. this whole deal is very suspicious.. the new presumed guilty trend is pretty scary as well..
BigHornRam
Well-known member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Another dandy ruling by a "Montana judge"
https://thinkprogress.org/judge-blocks-coal-mine-expansion-0d6126ebbc00/
https://thinkprogress.org/judge-blocks-coal-mine-expansion-0d6126ebbc00/
smarandr
Well-known member
My thoughts exactly. Even though I like the ends of Simpson/Tester, I wasn't thrilled about the means.
I read the whole thing, and am genuinely appalled and the utter lack of logic it contains. I feel mostly just speechless right now.
The "tone" of the paper really seemed to attack "Service" and sort of caught me off guard. I've never read a legal brief like this before so maybe this is the way that they all read. As much as I expected something like this, it still just makes me feel like, just, wow...
The "tone" of the paper really seemed to attack "Service" and sort of caught me off guard. I've never read a legal brief like this before so maybe this is the way that they all read. As much as I expected something like this, it still just makes me feel like, just, wow...
HONEYBADGER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 776
There are plenty of examples provided by others but you can also take the fact that the big business enviro litigators take their cases to him as a pretty good indicator of who he sides with. They would not search out someone in opposition or even indifference of their cause. They don't make their living off the government by being stupid.
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
Now a judge has made another decision in Wyoming.
https://elknetwork.com/judge-removes-elk-feedground-permit/
https://elknetwork.com/judge-removes-elk-feedground-permit/
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,589
Amen. It's a slippery slope for sure, and not necessarily a good one.
Yellowstoner
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 167
I know I'm stepping into a punch with this one - I'm okay with that.
I still believe that a co-mingling population of grizzlies should extend from the GYE to Glacier NP before delisting happens. The population doesn't have the genetic diversity that it should have to be entirely off of the ESL. I look at a species like the wolf as a great example of what should be required before we are allowed to hunt them - widespread distribution as well as connectivity among island populations. We are very close with the grizzly, but aren't quite there yet. Once they establish a real population in the Crazies and Little Belts I don't see any reason why they shouldn't come off of the ESL.
Please don't confuse this as someone who wants them protected forever. I believe we need to hunt grizzlies to reduce their presence on the landscape in many areas. I just don't think we've prioritized the habitat expansion required to have genetically diverse populations, which has led to a large percentage of grizzlies living in a very small part of their natural range. We've moved away from habitat expansion in favor of protectionism for existing populations. It's a sad reality that I think many on both sides hope to continue (the anti-gun folks want to keep distribution low to keep them on the ESL, while the hunting crowd wants their range small to protect the ungulates). I hope we can expand their habitat, protect the existing population, and manage them appropriately.
I really believe that this is going to be an even bloodier fight than delisting wolves was. I hope more than anything that our rights as hunters aren't eroded because of this issue, but unfortunately I see this as a future campaign for anti-hunters. Many people anthropomorphize the grizzly and will portray hunters as blood-crazed trophy hunters over this, while most people just want a safer, well-managed population. It's going to cause a divide that has been closing since the delisting of the wolves. Prepare to see the "farm to table" hunters turning again away from hunting over this.
I still believe that a co-mingling population of grizzlies should extend from the GYE to Glacier NP before delisting happens. The population doesn't have the genetic diversity that it should have to be entirely off of the ESL. I look at a species like the wolf as a great example of what should be required before we are allowed to hunt them - widespread distribution as well as connectivity among island populations. We are very close with the grizzly, but aren't quite there yet. Once they establish a real population in the Crazies and Little Belts I don't see any reason why they shouldn't come off of the ESL.
Please don't confuse this as someone who wants them protected forever. I believe we need to hunt grizzlies to reduce their presence on the landscape in many areas. I just don't think we've prioritized the habitat expansion required to have genetically diverse populations, which has led to a large percentage of grizzlies living in a very small part of their natural range. We've moved away from habitat expansion in favor of protectionism for existing populations. It's a sad reality that I think many on both sides hope to continue (the anti-gun folks want to keep distribution low to keep them on the ESL, while the hunting crowd wants their range small to protect the ungulates). I hope we can expand their habitat, protect the existing population, and manage them appropriately.
I really believe that this is going to be an even bloodier fight than delisting wolves was. I hope more than anything that our rights as hunters aren't eroded because of this issue, but unfortunately I see this as a future campaign for anti-hunters. Many people anthropomorphize the grizzly and will portray hunters as blood-crazed trophy hunters over this, while most people just want a safer, well-managed population. It's going to cause a divide that has been closing since the delisting of the wolves. Prepare to see the "farm to table" hunters turning again away from hunting over this.
BrentD
Well-known member
Yellowstone, all good points. Really good points. No punches here. Thanks.
onpoint
Well-known member
If one can put away personal bias - agree or disagree - Yellowstoner's post is a good one. Some will struggle with the provocation of thought...…..
Lonesome_God_outdoors
Active member
I agree that we can work towards a continuous line of bears from the southern end of the GYE up through the glacier population but I don't think it's necessary before delisting. The GYE bears have been cut off for decades are don't show signs of inbreeding or lack of genetic diversity. Capture and relocate from other populations can help mitigate this issue as the political aspects of bears in the Bitterroot are worked out. One of the main issues I see with requiring a interconnectivity is how that can apply to other species. Are we going to list the elk in Kentucky or Pennsylvania as threatened because they also lack connectivity to the larger populations? Personally I'm doubtful but there's an argument there. The IGBST has been studying GYE bears since the 70s and I actually read their reports. When the delisting was proposed this was what they said on the matter, " Regardless of the legal status of the population, the combination of these 5 basic data sources alone provide evidence that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has reached biological recovery, now occupying almost all areas that were identified as suitable habitat and where presence of grizzly bears was deemed socially acceptable (USFWS 2016). "
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Yellowstoner does make a good point. It will be a bloody fight. The other side continues to use brass knuckles and we continue to play by the "rules". I'm done playing patty cake. Struggle with that provocation of thought on point.
Would be interesting to find a way to quantify the number of grizzlies that die because we do not hunt them. What I mean by that is the number of grizzly cubs that are killed by excess boars that otherwise would’ve been hunted, the number of grizzlies who have no fear or respect for humans that are killed in self-defense, the number of grizzlies that hang around homes and cause trouble or damage and are removed, etc. When you go to a place where grizzly bears are hunted, you will rarely see one that is downwind of you. GYE bears can smell you, look you dead in the face at 50 yards and go back to what they were doing as if you don’t exist. How many bears die because of that right there?
Pretty hard to quantify because humans are closer to grizzly habitat in much higher numbers in L48 than they are further north. But I think there’s no doubt that the Disney mentality of Jellystone is loving some bears all the way to their deaths.
Pretty hard to quantify because humans are closer to grizzly habitat in much higher numbers in L48 than they are further north. But I think there’s no doubt that the Disney mentality of Jellystone is loving some bears all the way to their deaths.
Similar threads
