Randy Newberg's position on grizzly bear hunting

[The Hedgehog]

Inquiring minds want to know...

What is it?

 

[Rancho Loco]

I know he uses that sitting position a lot, with sticks. I was never a fan. I go off the pack wherever possible.

 

[Big Fin]

Not sure my thoughts are worth writing, but here they are. Some of these concepts have been posted here on a few occasions. The highlights of my thoughts are:

* Make it a backcountry type hunt by determining where bears can be hunted. That might require have smaller management units that are far from roads, reducing the likelihood that a known/named/numbered bear will get toasted in a high tourist area and make Cecil the Lion look like a small distraction.

* Long seasons so people don't feel rushed to fill a tag, increasing the likelihood of a sow being selected. Make the tag good for both the spring or fall season.

* Focus as much of the hunting outside the DMA (demographic monitoring area), as for purposes of human-caused mortality stats such as used for possible relisting, bears in the DMA are ignored, almost that they don't even exist.

* Have an an orientation course that is meaningful and requires a time commitment, thereby resulting in applicants who are more likely to understand that this is a unique opportunity and the tagholder is entrusted with a tag that could have a huge negative to hunting if not conducted properly.

* Have a significant non-refundable application fee to even apply.

* Shooting a sow with cubs is a serious fine for all your hunting privileges, not just bear hunting.

* Meat salvage requirements that mirror that state's requirements for other bears.

These are a few of the ideas I've presented to Commissioners or Governor staffs in MT and WY. The concerns some have stated about these ideas is that it makes the hurdles too high and it selects for a type of hunter that excludes a lot of applicants. That is true. And in my opinion, that is how it should be, given the hard-earned opportunity these tags represent. Personally, I want committed hunters to be the ones drawing these tags; hunters who understand what is at stake and what the opportunity represents. These tags are not like a whitetail doe hunt. If someone doesn't like having a high bar to clear, then don't apply.

I have spent parts of the last twenty years involved in this issue. On the Governor Grizzly Bear Roundtable I participated in over a period of three years, we were each given one "To die for" issue that must be in the final Conservation Strategy to get our vote, with the goal we would have unanimous consent to the document when provided to the USFWS for crafting of this management plan. For me to vote for our final draft, it had to include hunting as an expected management tool under state control. This Plan (Conservation Strategy) contains that, almost verbatim of how the Roundtable presented to the USFWS. Given that, my feelings about hunting under this plan are probably a bit different than they would otherwise be. I'm not inclined to see grizzly bear hunting be treated as just another opportunity where for a $3 application fee anyone with Uncle Joe's .30-30 in the closet will feel the need to apply for a tag.

I know others may have a different opinion. That's fine.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think that's pretty damned reasonable, and well thought out Randy.

I concur.

 

[JM77]

If I know Wyoming, and I think I have a handle on it here, grizzlies will be treated like the other trophy game species and with very conservative quotas like wolves.

I could possibly see education for successful draw applicants, but little or no focus on making a grizzly hunt undesirable for the regular hunter. In other words "no high bar" being set. My opinion of course...

 

[Goatshoes]

I understand where Randy is going with his list, but I would make the following adjustments which I think are fair and perhaps more effective, and I will provide my reasoning.

First I would eliminate the word "significant" from asterisk #5 "Have a significant non-refundable application fee to even apply."

This qualification is indiscriminate in the way it excludes those seeking just another opportunity "where for a $3 application fee anyone with Uncle Joe's .30-30 in the closet." It unintentionally excludes a lot of potential applicants of lessor means many of whom are equally or more committed to wildlife and hunting heritage than deeper pocketed individuals.

To achieve the same effect without the financial burden, I would modify asterisk #4 to be a pre-requisit to applying for the tag. Committed individuals will put forth the effort required to apply for a low odds tag, Uncle Joe's nephew wont. "Have an an orientation course that is meaningful and requires a time commitment, thereby resulting in applicants who are more likely to understand that this is a unique opportunity and the tagholder is entrusted with a tag that could have a huge negative to hunting if not conducted properly.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Thanks Randy. In my opinion, your position is pretty solid.

 

[RobG]

I think Gutkoski added no guides and you had to haul it out your back from five miles in or something similar

 

[el unit]

Good stuff Randy.

 

[Addicting]

I understand where Randy is going with his list, but I would make the following adjustments which I think are fair and perhaps more effective, and I will provide my reasoning.

First I would eliminate the word "significant" from asterisk #5 "Have a significant non-refundable application fee to even apply."

This qualification is indiscriminate in the way it excludes those seeking just another opportunity "where for a $3 application fee anyone with Uncle Joe's .30-30 in the closet." It unintentionally excludes a lot of potential applicants of lessor means many of whom are equally or more committed to wildlife and hunting heritage than deeper pocketed individuals.

To achieve the same effect without the financial burden, I would modify asterisk #4 to be a pre-requisit to applying for the tag. Committed individuals will put forth the effort required to apply for a low odds tag, Uncle Joe's nephew wont. "Have an an orientation course that is meaningful and requires a time commitment, thereby resulting in applicants who are more likely to understand that this is a unique opportunity and the tagholder is entrusted with a tag that could have a huge negative to hunting if not conducted properly.

Agreed, time is something a dededicated person has. It is worth more than money and keeps those committed to keep a vested interest. Money is something a Elitist hunter has plenty of and will waste. Hence a calf shot on the Governor's tag.

 

[bobbydean]

Like Big Fins' rational.

 

[MNHunter]

There you go again Randy. Well thought out ideas

 

[idnative1948]

The voice of reason speaks again. Great thoughts Randy.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

What ^^^he said!

 

[icebreaker12]

I understand where Randy is going with his list, but I would make the following adjustments which I think are fair and perhaps more effective, and I will provide my reasoning.

First I would eliminate the word "significant" from asterisk #5 "Have a significant non-refundable application fee to even apply."

This qualification is indiscriminate in the way it excludes those seeking just another opportunity "where for a $3 application fee anyone with Uncle Joe's .30-30 in the closet." It unintentionally excludes a lot of potential applicants of lessor means many of whom are equally or more committed to wildlife and hunting heritage than deeper pocketed individuals.

To achieve the same effect without the financial burden, I would modify asterisk #4 to be a pre-requisit to applying for the tag. Committed individuals will put forth the effort required to apply for a low odds tag, Uncle Joe's nephew wont. "Have an an orientation course that is meaningful and requires a time commitment, thereby resulting in applicants who are more likely to understand that this is a unique opportunity and the tagholder is entrusted with a tag that could have a huge negative to hunting if not conducted properly.

For a nonresident it Wyoming its going to be a pretty well off fella to apply anyway with the $6000 license fee.

 

[Curvebow]

Good thoughts Randy; coming from a person who has thought it out more than the remaining 95% of us. Thanks for sharing.

 

[huntid73]

Very well thought out Randy, I know Idaho is proposing grizzly hunts to be a once-in-a-lifetime tag as well.

 

[LopeHunter]

Very well thought out Randy, I know Idaho is proposing grizzly hunts to be a once-in-a-lifetime tag as well.

Any discussion if the grizzly be a new application category or simply lumped into the "sheep or goat or moose" grouping so to apply for grizzly means not applying for the other Big 3?

 

[mixedbag]

Only thing I can't agreen with is the substantial application fee.Sounds like that totally goes against the very things you stand for.A 6k NR tag fee is ridiculous.Who has that to throw around but the rich.So it sounds like this grizzly hunt is just a hunt for the well off,and everyone here seems to agree,I'm amazed

 

[huntid73]

Any discussion if the grizzly be a new application category or simply lumped into the "sheep or goat or moose" grouping so to apply for grizzly means not applying for the other Big 3?

From what I understand, grizzly would be lumped into sheep, goat and moose regs/rules.