Plotting the Future for Grizzlies
How Will We Hunt Grizzlies?
Wildlife agencies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are looking for feedback about future grizzly bear hunts, in case the bruins' population swells.
By Amy Linn, 8-04-09
For people who have an opinion about grizzly bear hunting, the time to speak up is now.
Three state agencies—Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game—are looking for comments on proposed guidelines for future bear hunting seasons. The hunts, according to the agencies, would only take place if grizzly bear populations are robust enough to withstand the “discretionary” mortality.
According to FWP, none of the states are considering a grizzly hunting season at this time. But if populations ever swell to the point where there are “surplus bears,” Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have drafted an agreement for developing quotas and other matters related to bear hunting. (The number of grizzlies in Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding ecosystem has increased from about 136 bears in 1975, when they were listed as a threatened species, to more than 500 bears today, the FWP says.)
The current proposal, as the FWP describes it, would:
--"Include area-wide caps on grizzly bear mortalities [and] intensive monitoring of Yellowstone bears, their food, and their habitats.”
--Establish maximum allowable mortality limits for adult males and females, as well as for dependent young, grizzly bears.
--Allow different states to have different objectives. “Specifically, the state of Wyoming’s objective is to limit further expansion of the population in size and distribution ... The states of Idaho and Montana have an objective of allowing the population to expand into biologically suitable and socially acceptable areas.”
To see the entire proposal, go to the FWP website and click on 2009 MOU. For more information, go to FWP.
Comments are due by August 12 at 5 p.m. Send them by mail to: Grizzy Bear MOU; Wildlife Division; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; P.O. Box 200701; Helena, MT 59620-0701. Comments can also be sent by .
[End of article]Grizzly bears should not be hunted until all roadless areas in the lower 48 are secured. This means long lasting protection by congress/president in the form of wilderness or some other designation.
Once these areas are preserved, linkage corridors need to be looked at and protected.
When that happens, and only then we should look at hunting a few grizzly bears.
I agree, we definitely need to look at the linkage corridors, whatever the hell that means.
Comment By tim Border, 8-05-09The road Montana officials are following for the grizzly is the same sad road it created for the bison; our kids will not be able to feel the wild Montana for lack of habitat for the bear, with a few bears that visit Montana from time to time coming from islands such Yellowstone. Why does Montana insist on creating itself just like the rest of the lower 48 states when it has such incredible resources unique to this part of the country and world?
Comment By Cindy, 8-05-09Isn't it odd, after living most of my life in grizzly country, I have noticed that grizzlies as well as black bears would rather walk down a Forest Service road than in the brush. Easier walking and no thorns as well. Isn't it odd that I have had grizzlies in our yard nosing around, (we never left garbage etc. out for them as we knew better, you learn that when you live in bear country). Isn't odd that I have pictures of grizzlies walking the Alaskian Pipe line because it was easier walking and warm than the tundra, also the carabou feeding beneath it. Isn't it odd that I have seen antelope, deer, and all sorts of small game feeding around oil and gas pumps. Isn't odd that the researchers that trapped and tagged bears injured and killed more bears (mainly grizzlies) than hunters. Don't hear about that do you.
I'm sorry but this hogwash of locking up the land for the wildlife is just that "hogwash". So please how about talking to those who actually have lived in that kind of country instead of taking the words of the bleeding hearts of Walt Disney and such. People who are willing to live with the nature of things instead of trying to change it into something that it is not, which so many new comers try to do. They turn their dogs and cats loose and expect their flowers not to be eaten. They bring their way of living in a populated place with them and expect it to be the same here. Then they complain when life isn't exactly what they want. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
A lot of bear conflict comes from the bad bears who don't "get" humans. Rather than schlump them from drainage to drainage, it might be a resolution of sorts to get hunting back in the "lesson plan."
Establish quotas, count off season losses against the quotas, but do everything possible to ensure that seasons do come off, and that sportsmen and women can in fact defend themselves appropriately while afield. No more gutpile surprises.
I'd support a limited knive, only, season. Video documetation would be required viewing for future special tag applicants.
Comment By bison83, 8-05-09I hope the prospect of hunting bears looks as good as it does for hunting wolves. People are ready for the wolf hunting seasons opening this fall. To find how and where to hunt wolves theres a site.
http://www.huntwolves.com
Hormones used for limiting bear populations is feasible and more desirable than killing these magnificent creatures. Bears are frequently killed on roads when hit by cars and trucks. Although they enjoy the convenience of roads, they are often horrific death traps for bears.
Comment By Russell Levin, 8-21-09If you have spent some time in the wilderness where the stillness of the forest and the sounds of the "residents" make you smile, then you can understand that our damage to habitat makes hunting and disease necessary as means of maintaining a healthy population numbers. I do not believe in harvesting animals if their population does not warrant this. In the case of elk in North Dakota, wolves out west, and deer in the north east, we have official policies that call for harvesting animals in order to maintain a healthy population. In the county north of where I live there is no limit on the number of deer that can be harvested. Again all in the interest of maintaining healthy populations. I can understand why animal rights folks take their position but do they want animals to starve or suffer from disease. Both side have their good points and both sides have the responsibility to manage animal populations in a scientifically proven manner.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/should_grizzlies_be_hunted_in_the_future/C8/L8/