Grizz hunting is over

[PrairieHunter]

I guess it just depends on the goal for these bears. If indeed the goal was to have bears in more or less all of Western Montana so the two populations connect then I guess we need to wait. But if we do that then we can probably expect dispersal into areas to the East, South, and West possibly even into places like the Snowies, Colorado, and the Black Hills.

I guess I don't really know what the goal is with these bears or wolves but my personal preference is that we don't need griz or wolves back in historic ranges across much of the country or even in nearby places like the black hills or Pine Ridge NF which are just now seeing black bears show up in recent years. Just a small population around YNP and the surrounding areas but not all or most of Wyoming is what I would prefer. Probably be best to let folks in Montana decide if they want to have bears in the entire western half of the state or just two pockets as well. Same with Idaho.

If you look at maps of historical ranges it's obvious that previous generations did not want to live nearby griz and I suspect most people still feel the same way about reintroducing them where they currently live even in Western states.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I see what you're saying Yellowstoner, and science-based management would dictate that more connectivity between bear populations is indeed a good thing. However, that was not a recovery criteria for delisting IIRC. All of the recovery criteria that were originally identified have been met, and then some. If we are going to add new criteria every time a delisting is proposed, the Act doesn't work, delisting never happens and support for the entire ESA is severely eroded. There is no reason that the states can't manage for and expand connectivity between bear populations as part of their own science-based management.

No punches here either, just good dialogue

 

[PrairieHunter]

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...…..

There are certainly some good thoughts in there but one part which really stands out to me

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

I was not aware that was the goal here with wolves or grizlies.

Do people in Montana want a stable population of Griz in the entire Western half of the state including regular sightings in the East?
How about Wyoming/Idaho? (My guess is NO for Wyoming)

Do the people in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, etc want stable populations of wolves so the island population in Wyoming connects to those in the Great lakes, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc... ? (This is likely an overwhelming NO)

How about Utah and Colorado do they want stable populations of wolves to connect to island populations in the Southwest/Mexico?

Having a few of these animals around YNP and surrounding areas is one thing, getting into connecting populations is a much different issue IMO. If that was the goal here then I apparently completely missed that part (entirely possible).

 

[BrentD]

I see what you're saying Yellowstoner, and science-based management would dictate that more connectivity between bear populations is indeed a good thing. However, that was not a recovery criteria for delisting IIRC. All of the recovery criteria that were originally identified have been met, and then some. If we are going to add new criteria every time a delisting is proposed, the Act doesn't work, delisting never happens and support for the entire ESA is severely eroded. There is no reason that the states can't manage for and expand connectivity between bear populations as part of their own science-based management.

No punches here either, just good dialogue

Ther is no reason that the states can't but there is no guarentee that they will. The states could have acted before the species became endangered in the first place but they did not.

The back and forth between remaining listed and delisting is not a bad thing. It is a system that allows for checks and balances, and that is the way the system is supposed to work. In the end, they will be delisted. There will be hunting. It will happen. Just like wolves, just like alligators, but maybe not just yet.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I see what you're saying Yellowstoner, and science-based management would dictate that more connectivity between bear populations is indeed a good thing. However, that was not a recovery criteria for delisting IIRC. All of the recovery criteria that were originally identified have been met, and then some. If we are going to add new criteria every time a delisting is proposed, the Act doesn't work, delisting never happens and support for the entire ESA is severely eroded. There is no reason that the states can't manage for and expand connectivity between bear populations as part of their own science-based management.

No punches here either, just good dialogue

The criteria were changed based on the Great Lakes case. That's interpretation of the law, versus adding new criteria. If we want to fix the ESA, focus on the DPS ruling and make sure you can delist based on distinct population segments rather than range wide.

Congressional delisting is a quick fix, and it does nothing to change the application of the law. I'd be opposed to that at this point, and would rather we look at the case USFWS put forward to see if they messed things up rather than attack the judge. With the personnel issues the service is facing, loss of institutional knowledge, no leadership, etc, I can see the legal dept. not crossing every I and dotting ever T.

Great post, Yellowstoner.

 

[Yellowstoner]

There are certainly some good thoughts in there but one part which really stands out to me

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

I was not aware that was the goal here with wolves or grizlies.

Do people in Montana want a stable population of Griz in the entire Western half of the state including regular sightings in the East?
How about Wyoming/Idaho? (My guess is NO for Wyoming)

Do the people in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, etc want stable populations of wolves so the island population in Wyoming connects to those in the Great lakes, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc... ? (This is likely an overwhelming NO)

How about Utah and Colorado do they want stable populations of wolves to connect to island populations in the Southwest/Mexico?

Having a few of these animals around YNP and surrounding areas is one thing, getting into connecting populations is a much different issue IMO. If that was the goal here then I apparently completely missed that part (entirely possible).

The goal of reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone and the Idaho panhandle was always a reintroduction to the northern rockies, not just contained to certain geographical areas. While I can't speak to what the ESA specifically states for recovery goals, I don't think I necessarily have to list reasons from the ESA to form my opinion. Personally I don't think that it should be up to the people of a given state to determine which animals are most convenient to have around. Look at the spotted owl in the northwest part of our country. If the populace there had their way, there wouldn't be a single owl stopping the loggers from logging. (Whew, that's a loaded statement, but I think everyone can see truth there...right or wrong. I'm not trying to be accusatory here, and that's not an insult towards loggers or the people who live in the PNW - I just use it as an example of an animal that if put to a vote would be eradicated to accomodate business.)

I do know that genetic diversity among grizzlies in the GYE has always been a concern. In fact, even the diversity among the bison population inside Yellowstone has been seen as a potential issue.

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). "

I think this quote is being taken out of context here, correct me if I'm wrong - what it's meant to say is that within the GYE, the grizzly bear occupies all suitable habitat. There's plenty of habitat outside of the GYE that would be suitable for grizzlies. Just because an island population is thriving doesn't mean that the entire species has been fully recovered. If all western elk were extinct and the only elk left were the island populations in Kentucky and Pennsylvania, I would hope that we would have them on the ESA, even if their local populations are doing extremely well.

The more I think about this, the more I struggle with the entire issue. We're keeping these animals on the ESA specifically to prevent hunting - not to facilitate some sort of recovery. We're using the ESA as an ends to a means, and it probably shouldn't be used in this way. Unfortunately, I don't think our state wildlife managers would be able to withstand the pressure to not hunt these animals if they are delisted. That's the unfortunate part to me.

One last thing:

How do you all foresee the hunting to actually take place when it is legalized in Montana? Won't every tag holder just run up to Tom Miner basin and shoot one of the 15 grizzlies that are currently mulling around the meadows on B-Bar Ranch? I suppose that would be up to the tag holder, but hunting a grizzly here sure won't be the challenge that some people might think it would be.

 

[BigHornRam]

When and if there ever is a legal hunting season for grizzly and if I am fortunate enough to draw a tag, I plan to hunt them in the same country that I hunt for unlimited sheep. Country like this.



Or this where I crossed hour old tracks coming out of this lake basin.



If a grizzly hunt was ever opened up for the Bob Marshall complex, it would be a hunt of my lifetime.

Yellowstoner, you appear to be a conflicted hunter that has whole lot of biased and poorly informed opinions. You do not come off to me as someone who would ever favor a grizzly hunt for any reason. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[PrairieHunter]

The goal of reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone and the Idaho panhandle was always a reintroduction to the northern rockies, not just contained to certain geographical areas. While I can't speak to what the ESA specifically states for recovery goals, I don't think I necessarily have to list reasons from the ESA to form my opinion. Personally I don't think that it should be up to the people of a given state to determine which animals are most convenient to have around. Look at the spotted owl in the northwest part of our country. If the populace there had their way, there wouldn't be a single owl stopping the loggers from logging. (Whew, that's a loaded statement, but I think everyone can see truth there...right or wrong. I'm not trying to be accusatory here, and that's not an insult towards loggers or the people who live in the PNW - I just use it as an example of an animal that if put to a vote would be eradicated to accomodate business.)

I do know that genetic diversity among grizzlies in the GYE has always been a concern. In fact, even the diversity among the bison population inside Yellowstone has been I seen as a potential issue..

I guess I was not aware that the goal was to have wolves wide spread across the Northern Rockies and regular sightings in surrounding areas from the Dakotas, Nebraska, etc.. I was always under the impression that the goal was focused around YNP which was why in most of Wyoming wolves can be shot on sight just like Coyotes. That seems to indicate that the goal was just around 15% of Wyoming to have wolves, much different than what you describe. And it also seems to indicate that once the goals are met each state will decide how to manage the animals, just like I suggested.

Was the goal of griz reintroduction to connect the 2 populations in Montana? I have never read that anywhere except from you.

It should absolutely be up to the people to decide. If Montanans want stable populations of Griz in the entire Western half of the state that should be their choice as it was never the goal. Same with Wyoming, we should decide if we want wolves and Griz beyond the NW part of the state.

As far as buffalo that may be a concern but it does not mean the goal is to have wild herds of buffalo connecting with the herds in YNP to increase genetic diversity. Would be nice but not practical, much like what you describe having griz in much of Wyoming and Montana would be.

I think you bring up some interesting points but in the end they are well beyond the goals for wolves and griz around YNP and not going to get support from people in states like Montana or Wyoming who clearly are not trying to have widespread griz in each state.

 

[tjones]

Great posts Yellowstoner. Well thought out and it seems you are very knowledgeable on both the wolf and griz issues. For an internet forum its a breath of fresh air.

 

[belly-deep]

The genetic diversity problem could be solved real easy. They trap and relocate bears all the time. Instead of trapping in Choteau and dropping off in the South Fork of the Flathead, they could drive them down to the GYE and vice versa.

 

[Big Fin]

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 get the points you are making, but that is not what was provided as the criteria for delisting. The issue of connectivity has been tried by the litigators and refuted by the best bear scientists on the planet. There is nothing in the Gbear ESA listing language that requires Gbears to occupy the Big Belts, Little Belts, Crazies, or any place outside the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) for that matter, to allow for delisting. I get that some, including you, feel that requirement should be added now as an additional requirement for delisting, though the science upon which this listing/delisting states such is not necessary for a secure population in the GYE.

I disagree with your comments about habitat. If you read the Conservation Strategy (CS), you will see huge habitat restrictions that have been implemented for Gbears in the GYE. Every part of the PCA is divided into habitat areas and all are monitored and managed for Gbears, expanding the core Gbear habitats since the bears were listed. For anyone to say that habitat has not been managed, changed in allowed use, and therefore expanded for Gbears, is a false statement. The CS and supporting documents have extensive detail as to these habitat adjustments, all of which required serious changes in human activities allowed in those areas, over the last 25 years. Most of SW MT, NW WY, and Eastern ID have had huge changes to habitats in terms of allowed human activity, all for the benefit of increaed core habitat areas for Gbears. One can look at those areas in the PCA and examine the allowed uses today and management strategies for Gbears, as compared to 30 years ago,and it shows a huge increase in core Gbear habitat over that time.

I would suggest folks read the Conservation Strategy for the Greater Yellowstone DPS (distinct population segment). The CS give history and background of how we got here, how the five DPS were arrived at, etc. It also goes into great detail as to the safety nets that are in place. Based on comments I read, it seems a very small portion of hunters, or people in general, have read the CS. That document is based on 40 years of science and research by the most informed bear biologists we have. If you talk to anyone of them, they state the science shows the population is fully recovered and far past the point of delisting.

If people want to change the targets/goals/criteria for delisting, then that is a different discussion. Right now, those wanting to change the criteria don't want to admit the want to move the markers, rather they litigate to get science laymen, judges with degrees not anywhere related to the animal sciences, to make decisions that effectively change the criteria.

I've been involved in the Gbear CS since 1998. It is very frustrating to see the BS on this decision. We wonder why the ESA is under attack. This is the exact reason. No matter how many times the USFWS biologists satisfy even the most remote concerns of the long-term viability of the GYE DPS, the courts decide otherwise.

Count me in as one who is now advocating some serious changes to the ESA, EAJA, and associated Federal Law that makes this kind of litigation outcome possible. Last I checked, we had the ESA to move species off the list and to state management. If folks want a Federal model of wildlife management, as do many of the litigators and their supporters, then come forward with a discussion as to why we should change our current state based model and let's have that discussion.

I appreciate your points and bringing them forward. I hope this thread can be helpful to let more people understand how much work, compromise, and science has went into Gbear expansion over the last forty years. We have come a long ways. The bears are recovered. A lot of people in the core Gbear areas have made huge adjustments to their activities to accommodate Gbears. These kind of decisions are a kick in the crotch to those who have worked hard and changed their lives to meet the criteria that allows for a robust and viable Gbear population.

 

[BigHornRam]

The genetic diversity problem could be solved real easy. They trap and relocate bears all the time. Instead of trapping in Choteau and dropping off in the South Fork of the Flathead, they could drive them down to the GYE and vice versa.

Crazy talk right here. Don't pay any attention to it, BD makes too much sense.

 

[BigHornRam]

Great posts Yellowstoner. Well thought out and it seems you are very knowledgeable on both the wolf and griz issues. For an internet forum its a breath of fresh air.

Yellowstoners knowledge on the spotted owl and the ESA is so limited, it's not even dangerous. Biased and uninformed. His grizzly knowledge is little better. All emotion.

 

[npaden]

I'm still struggling with the Judges ruling. I guess until Grizzly's are in Golden Gate park in San Francisco they won't be officially recovered.

Based on the same reasoning they should probably call a halt to the elk hunting going on in about every western state because there is still a long way to go before they are back in all their historical range.

Same with Bison, they better call those hunts off immediately.

 

[BigHornRam]

Yep, count me in too as an advocate for big changes to the ESA and EAJA.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yellowstoners knowledge on the spotted owl and the ESA is so limited, it's not even dangerous. Biased and uninformed. His grizzly knowledge is little better. All emotion.

I won't even suggest I know the ends and the out of the spotted owl, way before my time, but I don't think that sentiment is misguided. I think we have a moral imperative to protect species regardless of their existence being inconvenient. That being said I definitely don't agree with the current ruling.

Also, is there a reason problem GYE or Northern Rocky bears aren't moved around to promote pop growth, or non-problem bears for that matter? I mean if the goal is to use GYE as a "bear well" why not catch a couple of dry sows every year and drop them off in the Belts, Bridgers, Cabinets, Anaconda, Etc.

 

[BigHornRam]

I won't even suggest I know the ends and the out of the spotted owl, way before my time, but I don't think that sentiment is misguided. I think we have a moral imperative to protect species regardless of their existence being inconvenient. That being said I definitely don't agree with the current ruling.

Also, is there a reason problem GYE or Northern Rocky bears aren't moved around to promote pop growth, or non-problem bears for that matter? I mean if the goal is to use GYE as a "bear well" why not catch a couple of dry sows every year and drop them off in the Belts, Bridgers, Cabinets, Anaconda, Etc.

Yellowstoners comment that " if put to a vote the spotted owl would be eradicated to accommodate business" is pure crap. Mistakes have been made in the past, but there are many people trying hard to correct those mistakes. Take a look at this lengthy, complex, and often conflicting research summary of what is good and bad for spotted owl survival and you will likely end up more confused than you are now.


https://www.wolfecology.com/single-...ar-cutting-and-fire-suppresstheiprajohaes-has

By using the ESA to halt all forest management we may well be doing more harm to endangered species like lynx and spotted owl than help. Why don't we allow the experts we hire to do their job to the best of their abilities and put an end to all this litigation b s?

 

[BigHornRam]

https://www.wolfecology.com/single-...ar-cutting-and-fire-suppression-practices-has

Sorry, try this link.

 

[BigHornRam]

To answer your second question, you can place bears where ever. Doesn't mean they will stay there.

https://missoulian.com/news/local/g...cle_af414a38-e465-5bc1-9e3a-6f7dbd025cb1.html

How about adding Golden Gate Park to your list of transplant sites?

 

[PrairieHunter]

I'm still struggling with the Judges ruling. I guess until Grizzly's are in Golden Gate park in San Francisco they won't be officially recovered.

Based on the same reasoning they should probably call a halt to the elk hunting going on in about every western state because there is still a long way to go before they are back in all their historical range.

Same with Bison, they better call those hunts off immediately.

The reality is most people have no idea how large the historic ranges of griz were.