USFWS comment period open on Idaho Bitterroot Grizzly recovery.

[44hunter45]

Speak Up for Bears of the Bitterroot! – Idaho Conservation League

www.idahoconservation.org

 

[Beignet]

I certainly don’t mind bears in the Bitterroots, and get excited about reports of them being there.

But, I’m always a little torn on reintroduction efforts for any species. Especially when they’re already showing up unassisted.

Do you think bears would be more accepted/tolerated if they were allowed to populate the area naturally as opposed to the narrative that the government put them there as part of some conspiracy?

Would love to hear from folks on here in the “against” column if they’d be more tolerant of bears that showed up naturally.

 

[44hunter45]

I certainly don’t mind bears in the Bitterroots, and get excited about reports of them being there.

But, I’m always a little torn on reintroduction efforts for any species. Especially when they’re already showing up unassisted.

Do you think bears would be more accepted/tolerated if they were allowed to populate the area naturally as opposed to the narrative that the government put them there as part of some conspiracy?

Would love to hear from folks on here in the “against” column if they’d be more tolerant of bears that showed up naturally.

Worth reading the article. I haven't gone to the comments page. It seems they are asking commenters to vote for one of four options ranging from "Transplant bears now!" to " Let them come naturally"

 

[Beignet]

Worth reading the article. I haven't gone to the comments page. It seems they are asking commenters to vote for one of four options ranging from "Transplant bears now!" to " Let them come naturally"

I’m on board with what they wrote as their preferred options and had started my own comment in option 3 the other day (facilitate connectivity).

I am still curious to hear from folks against g-bears being there if they’d be more tolerant if they showed up naturally. Always been curious if people might’ve been more accepting of wolves if a version of option 3 presented here had been followed.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

I’m on board with what they wrote as their preferred options and had started my own comment in option 3 the other day (facilitate connectivity).

I am still curious to hear from folks against g-bears being there if they’d be more tolerant if they showed up naturally. Always been curious if people might’ve been more accepting of wolves if a version of option 3 presented here had been followed.

100% would be less annoyed about wolves in CO had we not spent millions bringing an animal here that was already establishing a foothold on its own. Stop jamming shit down our throat.

 

[Matthew57]

I certainly don’t mind bears in the Bitterroots, and get excited about reports of them being there.

But, I’m always a little torn on reintroduction efforts for any species. Especially when they’re already showing up unassisted.

Do you think bears would be more accepted/tolerated if they were allowed to populate the area naturally as opposed to the narrative that the government put them there as part of some conspiracy?

Would love to hear from folks on here in the “against” column if they’d be more tolerant of bears that showed up naturally.

To answer your last question...yes, of course.

 

[Ben Lamb]

To answer your last question...yes, of course.

Furthermore:

Would you be more tolerant of a reintroduced bear population if the state had co-management & if this meant more liberalized take policies due to conflict?

Would you be more tolerant of a naturally repopulating population of grizzly bears if that meant they had greater protections and humans had fewer options in term of management.

 

[Trial153]

Actually a good article, nice to seems like sensible approach.

 

[Matthew57]

Right now, it feels like there are no options in terms of management. I would support whatever leads to more options, so to answer your first question I think I would say yes? I haven't thought through every consequence of co-management. At this point with where we are population wise, I believe states should be trusted with sole management. I also think it was not great that the USFWS created the NEP in the BE, then in 2001 proposed to take "no action" with regard to reintroduction, then proceeded to not finalize their own rule. In my mind, that gave the lawsuit a leg to stand on and why we're here today and grizzlies aren't delisted.

 

[brymoore]

Didn’t this proposal get killed in the senate about 15 years ago?

 

[YukonGold]

Furthermore:

Would you be more tolerant of a reintroduced bear population if the state had co-management & if this meant more liberalized take policies due to conflict?

Would you be more tolerant of a naturally repopulating population of grizzly bears if that meant they had greater protections and humans had fewer options in term of management.

This is always my thought. I thought the whole point of reintroduction was to speed up recovery so states could take over management. Which I'd think people would generally want to support.

But for grizzlies in the Bitterroots, I'm not convinced the habitat is there anymore. I worry that reintroduced bears will just show up in neighborhoods and eat garbage. People here refuse to change their behavior to prevent black bear conflict especially for garbage....maybe the grizzly fear factor will do the trick, or a human death or two. Who knows.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is always my thought. I thought the whole point of reintroduction was to speed up recovery so states could take over management. Which I'd think people would generally want to support.

But for grizzlies in the Bitterroots, I'm not convinced the habitat is there anymore. I worry that reintroduced bears will just show up in neighborhoods and eat garbage. People here refuse to change their behavior to prevent black bear conflict especially for garbage....maybe the grizzly fear factor will do the trick, or a human death or two. Who knows.

I'd have to spend more time on this to see what the proposal actually is but if it's a nonessential-experimental population then you have a lot more management options in terms of removal of problem critters. If it's a strict Endangered or Threatened population distinction you end up with far stricter guidelines.

The nonessential/experimental designation for wolves in the GYE allowed for lethal removal for depredation versus the endangered status north of I-90, for example.

 

[idelkslayer]

Even if you allow the grizzlies to recolonize naturally there will still be people who will claim that the government secretly dropped off bears, and they have photos of the black helicopters to prove it, or they heard it from their father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room mate who knows a guy at USFWS or the state fish and game dept and saw the truck drive by with a bear in the back.

My preference would be natural colonization, there are some estimates according to the article that we could see this in as little as 5 years.

Alternative 1 and 3 would come with the potential for burdensome restrictions on the land uses along the potential travel corridors in order to protect the habitat and travel routes for the bears. This could be restrictions on black bear seasons (look what just happened to wolf trapping in Idaho due to the presence of Grizzly bears) or other trapping seasons. There could restrictions on existing roads or even new closures.

Grizzlies are going to get there eventually so I propose alternative 5. The states of Montana and Idaho agree to transplanting grizzlies in the Bitterroots in exchange for permanent Federal delisting of grizzly bears. The transplanting will done entirely under state control. X number of bears for Y number of years and if it isn't successful they can cease efforts.

This is always my thought. I thought the whole point of reintroduction was to speed up recovery so states could take over management. Which I'd think people would generally want to support.

But for grizzlies in the Bitterroots, I'm not convinced the habitat is there anymore. I worry that reintroduced bears will just show up in neighborhoods and eat garbage. People here refuse to change their behavior to prevent black bear conflict especially for garbage....maybe the grizzly fear factor will do the trick, or a human death or two. Who knows.

The habitat is definitely there. Don't think of it as only the Bitterroot valley. This is talking about the entire Bitterroot mountain range extending into the largest wilderness and roadless areas in Idaho.

 

[mtmuley]

The habitat is definitely there. Don't think of it as only the Bitterroot valley. This is talking about the entire Bitterroot mountain range extending into the largest wilderness and roadless areas in Idaho.

I understand this. And I am in favor of allowing the bears to recolonize naturally. mtmuley

 

[YukonGold]

The habitat is definitely there. Don't think of it as only the Bitterroot valley. This is talking about the entire Bitterroot mountain range extending into the largest wilderness and roadless areas in Idaho.

I wasn't talking about the habitat in the valley. I don't think there is enough food for them in those mountains anymore. No more salmon runs into Idaho streams, blister rust killed all the whitebark pines, huckleberry crop sucks often enough to send black bears into town every year...what are grizzlies gonna eat? I think all the black bear issues in the valley are a precursor to grizzly issues. Those griz that have been showing up in the Florence and Lolo areas in recent years end up hanging out near neighborhoods, apple trees, or the riverbottom. They aren't going in to the Bitterroot Mountains. Why?

 

[idelkslayer]

I wasn't talking about the habitat in the valley. I don't think there is enough food for them in those mountains anymore. No more salmon runs into Idaho streams, blister rust killed all the whitebark pines, huckleberry crop sucks often enough to send black bears into town every year...what are grizzlies gonna eat? I think all the black bear issues in the valley are a precursor to grizzly issues. Those griz that have been showing up in the Florence and Lolo areas in recent years end up hanging out near neighborhoods, apple trees, or the riverbottom. They aren't going in to the Bitterroot Mountains. Why?

I see what you mean. My guess is that like all other animals, the bears are finding the easiest, most abundant, and highest calorie meals that they can and focusing on that. There is a dense population of black bears in the Idaho side all along the Bitterroot mountains and no towns to speak of so they are living off of natural foods. Grizzly bears in other areas in the Rockies don't have access to salmon either so I don't think that would be an impediment. Ultimately, I am just speculating but with as many black bears as there are it seems like there would be enough food base for grizzlies as well. I would just like to let them get there naturally and not add any land use restrictions or new regulations in the area. At most maybe take those bears getting into trouble in Florence and Lolo and relocate them to the west.