# "Conservationist" Sue Feds to stop bear baiting in Wyoming and Idaho



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-sued-to-stop-use-of-bear-bait-by-hunters-in-idaho-and-wyoming/

Hmmm. Valid? Or simply another attempt to eliminate predator hunting?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

so, bear hunters are attempting to bait black bears, and then shooting [and killing] grizzly bears when they show up to the bait stations?

Sounds like a legitimate gripe to me. Maybe not the correct solution (eliminating bait), but definitely something that needs to be addressed.

To bad it isn't hunters leading the charge to fix this issue. Why do we wait for these "extreme" groups to raise awareness of bad practices by us??


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I wonder what the situations were regarding the grizzly's being shot. Baiting by it's very nature is going to be more hazardous to the hunter just due to the bait being so close to the hunter along with most that sit over bait are using a bow to take their bear. Having a grizzly that close could get uncomfortable if the bear gets curious.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I don't know what's going on fully - but harvesting the wrong species has nothing to do with the bait. It's on the hunter.

Now if it was "self defense" or whatnot, that's one thing. It would be more helpful if they cited the 8 incidents, and the timeframes of when they occurred.


“Bear baiting not only violates fair-chase hunting ethics, it has caused deaths of … grizzlies,” Lindsay Larris of WildEarth Guardians said. “Federal agencies are bound by the law to recover threatened grizzlies, and knowingly allowing bear baiting flagrantly violates that duty.” - Lol at the whole thing. 



Still waiting for the Grizzly bans to be lifted in states too..


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> Sounds like a legitimate gripe to me. Maybe not the correct solution (eliminating bait), but definitely something that needs to be addressed.


What is the legitimate gripe here? The article was so lacking in actual information I have no idea what their gripe is other than that they are ecochondriac tree huggers that want to end most of the activities that I love in life.

Sorry. Rant over. (Maybe)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I have googled a bit and found.... nothing.

Another article about it:

https://forestpolicypub.com/2019/06...ting-challenge-against-usfs-in-idaho-wyoming/

"Vague agency record keeping prohibits certainty about the extent of grizzly mortalities at black bear bait stations. However, in 2007, a grizzly was killed in the Bitterroot ecosystem on public land managed by the Forest Service, the first grizzly known to inhabit the area in over half a century."

So.. this is like the new suppressor ban push because one was used for what, the first time ever? They have a handful of incidents, and they are counting over 50 years of data.

The only grizzly kills I have found are definitive self defense, or the people were criminally convicted. Even then it's hard to find.


----------



## Steve G (Nov 29, 2016)

Please! Groups like this have one agenda only. Stop all hunting. They will use bogus logic and bogus information; because the it is the court of opinion which matters most to them and the public doesn't bother to think critically.

We too are subject to being intellectually lazy on topics less dear to us.


----------



## Steve G (Nov 29, 2016)

Wildlife Guardians Mission Statement

https://wildearthguardians.org/about-us/mission-vision-history/

WildEarth Guardians' mission, vision, and history - Protecting the voiceless

We are Guardians.

We protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West.

We envision a world where wildlife and wild places are respected and valued and our world is sustainable for all beings.

We believe in nature's inherent right to exist and thrive. We speak for the wild life, places, and waters that have been dominated and abused to serve the interests of a greedy few. Bit by bit, we are restoring the balance.

We are now, as always, A FORCE FOR NATURE.

I wouldn't trust the Rock-suckers as far as I could throw 'em.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Taken from the complaint filed:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/BearBaiting-COMPLAINT.pdf

A fair number of griz kills, but still not much info as to what went on at each kill site...

"36. On May 6, 2000, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear near Deer
Creek in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming.
37. On May 8, 2000, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a grizzly
bear near Owl Creek in the Shoshone National Forest.
38. On April 24, 2001, a bow hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a
grizzly bear in Rock Springs Canyon in Wyoming.
39. On June 9, 2002, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear in the Leidy
Creek drainage in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming.
40. On May 26, 2003, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a grizzly
bear near Middle Fork Owl Creek in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming.
41. On May 1, 2004, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a grizzly
bear on state lands near Grass Creek in Wyoming.
42. On May 10, 2004, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a grizzly
bear near Sweeney Creek in Elkheart Park on Bureau of Land Management lands in Wyoming.
43. On May 4, 2006, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a grizzly
bear near the South Fork of Owl Creek on private land in Wyoming.
44. On May 28, 2007, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a grizzly
bear on Dutch Joe Creek in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming.
45. On September 3, 2007, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a
grizzly bear in the North Fork Clearwater River watershed in the Nez Perce-Clearwater National
Forest in Idaho. This was the first grizzly bear that had been verified in the Bitterroot ecosystem
since 1946.
46. On May 7, 2008, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear in the North
Fork Shoshone drainage in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming.
47. On May 25, 2008, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear near Cliff
Creek in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming.
48. On May 27, 2008, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear near the
Clarks Fork River in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming.
49. On May 25, 2008, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear near Cliff
Creek in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming.
50. On May 24, 2009, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear near
Newton Creek in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming.
51. On June 14, 2008, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear near Reef
Creek in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming.
52. On August 26, 2009, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear in the
Deadman Creek drainage in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming.
53. On May 13, 2010, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear on state
lands near Grass Creek in Wyoming.
54. On May 7, 2014, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear just off Cave
Falls Road in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho.
55. On September 30, 2015, a hunter seeking black bears and using bait shot and killed a
grizzly bear on a private land inholding in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest in Idaho. The
grizzly bear was radio-collared. The grizzly bear had been reintroduced into the area from the
Cabinet-Yaak subpopulation.
56. On May 5, 2016, a hunter seeking black bears shot and killed a grizzly bear along Timber
Creek in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Wyoming.
57. On September 9, 2016, a hunter using a bow and seeking black bears shot and killed a
grizzly bear along the Wind River in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming.
*58. These incidents are under-inclusive of grizzly bears shot and killed over black bear bait in
Idaho and Wyoming. These incidents are under-inclusive of grizzly bears shot and killed over
black bear bait in national forests in Idaho and Wyoming.
*


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Looking at that list I think I have to agree with PBH.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Looking at that list I think I have to agree with PBH.


Okay. So tell me, based upon the list posted (which contains no corroborating information or details as the what or why...but I digress) tell me what the gripe is and what the legitimate problem here is. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but I've still not seen anyone say what the problem here is we as hunters are supposed to address.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

"Hunter seeking black bear over bait shot and killed a grizzly."
It seems like a problem of identification no?

Maybe we do need more detail to truly see what is going on but the wording on the list seems pretty black and white to me.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Does that listing say the bear was killed due to misidentification? Because I don’t see that there. This is anything but black and white. 

A moose hunter with guide hunting moose in Alaska this fall and shoots a charging grizzly bear. Is that black and white that they misidentified the bear for a moose when some extremist whacko environmentalist group trying to end hunting says, “Hunter seeking moose shot and killed grizzly?”


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A few years ago I took the Montana Game and Fish test on identification of a black bear and a grizzly and through the whole test there were only a couple of examples where the grizzly even came close to looking like a black bear. 

But back to the subject, we need a lot more information on the grizzly's that were killed. Such as did they get too close to the hunter while he hunted over bait and presented a threat? Did they come into the smell of blood after a black bear was shot and the hunter was butchering it? Was the grizzly feeding on the bait and did the hunter surprise the bear provoking a charge? 

Lots of question that are not answered in the little bit of information that we have.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

How about this one?

Was the black bear hunter even in the same county as his/her bait station when the grizzly was (allegedly) shot?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla -- I know you like facts. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and make an assumption. I know how assumptions work...I'll make an ass out of all of us.

My opinion is that there is a pattern to a few of these grizzly kills. Maybe not all, but I would wager a guess that most of these kills happened when a grizzly showed up at the bait station while the black bear hunter was hunting. My ignorant assumption is that the "self defense" card was then played.

If this is the case, and it is a repeatable pattern, I believe that as a hunter maybe we should look at the situation and see what we can do better to not bring upon ourselves increased scrutiny to a controversial subject, and rather attempt to promote better conservation of the very animals we want to hunt.

I wonder in how many of those instances the hunter has pictures of the grizzly bear on his bait station prior to killing it?


Yep -- that's me. Pessimistic, suspicious, doubtful, presumptuous, rabble-rousing me.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I randomly googled 10 of these incidents and found 0 articles about any of them. I wish there was more context.

Shoshone National Forest pops up a lot. If you google "Grizzly Killed Shoshone National Forest" you only find articles of bears killing or mauling humans there.

This sounds like a large number - until you look at the number of bear tags issues in Wyoming and Idaho and consider this is ~20 incidents in almost 17 years(in super high grizzly concentration areas). Also consider that over 80% of Grizzly kills are ruled self defense (stat I found while googling all this) and is it really a valid gripe? Or is it something that can still be managed on case-by-case basis?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

PBH said:


> If this is the case, and it is a repeatable pattern


I mean.. It's less than 1.2 incidents per year on average...

In Idaho you have to buy a bait permit (not sure in Wyoming). I suppose that permit can have more information handed out with it about the differences between the two bears and how to respond when a Grizzly comes in, what to do if your trail cam has a grizzly on it, etc....

For the cost of this lawsuit, that caring group could pay for that literature and give bear spray to every single bear hunter in the two states, probably for the next 20 years...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> For the cost of this lawsuit, that caring group could pay for that literature and give bear spray to every single bear hunter in the two states, probably for the next 20 years...


So what are we waiting for?
If the cost is right, then maybe pepper spray should be given to every tag holder. In the even that a grizzly bear is then "mistakenly" killed, then we prosecute the hunter for illegal kill.

that's all I'm saying with this case: As hunters, let's eliminate the so called "self defense" kills when a hunter baits the wrong species. Give them a means to protect themselves without the use of a lethal force. Then we don't have the envirowhacks suing to close it down because we aren't killing the wrong ones on purpose.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m not assuming anything in a light favorable to any of these disingenuous morons. I will give a hunter the benefit of the doubt over these liars any day of the week. 

Nope, I’m not assuming anything. If someone can provide actual details and show that hunters have done something wrong here, I’ll get on board. But just rolling with extremely vague and non-supported allegations by an ecochondriac tree hugger group that will stop at nothing short of complete elimination of all hunting? Nope. Not me.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> If someone can provide actual details and show that hunters have done something wrong here, I'll get on board.





stillhunterman said:


> Taken from the complaint filed:
> 
> https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/BearBaiting-COMPLAINT.pdf
> 
> ...


hunters killing the wrong species for which they have tags?

The question needs to be answered: Why are black bear hunters killing grizzly bears?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

For someone that has a long history of defending wildlife agencies and their decisions, you sure are giving a ton of credence to some tree huggers over those that make the informed decisions. How do you know those answers aren’t already conclusively answered in a biologically acceptable way? While you’re assuming, why don’t you give the benefit of the doubt to the hunters and wildlife agencies instead of the documented liars and those trying end hunting and fishing all together? 

Is it reasonable to think that these whackos have information about bears being killed that the respective wildlife agencies never knew about? Assuming these bears were actually killed for the sake of our discussion, do these tree huggers know about it when the agencies don’t? I think not. (Which for the record, without more, I’m not taking it at face value and do not even believe all these grizzly bears even died under these circumstances.)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla -- I guess my stance on this comes from personal experience here in southern Utah. I know a group that hunts deer on private land. They feed the deer all year long. when the archery hunt comes along, they send their kids to the blinds to wait for the bucks they've groomed to show up, and then shoot them. They usually take the apples out of their mouths prior to taking pictures of their prizes.

they've also shot a few black bears, and had some very scary close calls. The close calls include having children left alone in blinds while dad sits in another blind down the valley, within radio distance -- bears like apples too. In one such instance, the bear decided it wanted more than the pile of apples, and went into the blind with a 14 year old girl. That wasn't a good situation. The radio wasn't necessary, because dad could hear the girl screaming in terror as the bear attempted to drag her away.

Was the killing of the bear justified as self defense? Certainly. But only because the deer hunters put themselves in a very bad situation. They knew that bear was in the area because they had multiple pictures of it on their cameras. Should they have put a 14 year old girl by herself in a blind over apples in an area they knew a bear was roaming? No.

When you use the self defense argument in 3 consecutive years, something is wrong. Something should change.

I'm not advocating for the enviros. Hunting should continue for both black bears and grizzly bears alike. My issue is that we all know what happens when hunters encounter these predators -- especially in rural areas that continue to run livestock. And when you have a built-in excuse (self defense) it makes it that much easier. It also gives those enviros ammunition to use against us as hunters.

You are right -- we don't have all the information regarding those grizzly kills. I'm making some assumptions that some of you are not willing to make. That's fine. I get it. But I would also hope that as hunters we would be willing to help regulate our own, and assure that the sport that we love is being done in the right way, without compromising that opportunity for others in the future.

if our bait stations are bringing in the wrong species, and that causes a dangerous situation, would one think we should review the practice and figure out a way to make it less dangerous? Or, is the logic that "if a grizzly shows up we can shoot it and claim self defense" OK with you? How many hunters go in with that very attitude? Planning to shoot knowing that self defense is an excuse is justified poaching, in my opinion. I don't agree with that logic.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I think you know my position on poaching pretty well. I don't feel it necessary to rehash it right now, but can if you've forgotten. 

A bear bait station doesn't bring in a grizzly any easier than a dead elk or a gut pile. Should we have to review elk hunting too because some grizzlies get shot in "self defense" when we have brought them to us by our own elk hunting practices? 

You're asking for Pandora's Box to be opened here, and that is EXACTLY what this group of lying crazies wants to happen. Without more details and actual facts on what has happened in these situations, I'm not willing to go there.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

well....I think there is a difference between a bait station specifically designed and intended to attract bears vs. field dressing an elk. But if that's the direction you want to go....

...I'd be fine with requiring elk hunters to carry pepper spray to help curb self defense bear kills during field dressing. I thought all you guys carried spray anyway?

I'm not asking for Pandora's Box to be opened. I'm asking hunters to take some responsibility and be smart so that those lying crazies have no leg to stand on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of hunters in the rural West that have ties to ranching, and thus the only good predator is a dead one.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

PBH said:


> well....I think there is a difference between a bait station specifically designed and intended to attract bears vs. field dressing an elk. But if that's the direction you want to go....
> 
> ...I'd be fine with requiring elk hunters to carry pepper spray to help curb self defense bear kills during field dressing. I thought all you guys carried spray anyway?
> 
> I'm not asking for Pandora's Box to be opened. I'm asking hunters to take some responsibility and be smart so that those lying crazies have no leg to stand on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of hunters in the rural West that have ties to ranching, and thus the only good predator is a dead one.


I've avoided this conversation, because I don't believe there is even a hint of good faith in the enviros lawsuit. I view this as a slippery slope where they are looking to get a precedent set going forward that could limit other legal hunting by extension of the same line of reasoning. For example, notice that several of the examples aren't even mentioning bait, but rather "pursuing black bears."

It's not hard to see a world where that same verbiage is applied to a future lawsuit. "Hunter pursuing elk, kills grizzly." Elk hunting results in grizzly deaths, therefore it should be outlawed.

I also understand what you are getting at PBH, and understand the difference between baiting intentionally and other activities.

There are some folks out there that will use any excuse to be dirtbags, and don't show any kind of regard for the Grizzlies or what effect their actions, or lack of precautions might have on the rest of us. However, I think it is a dangerous game to play to attribute the good ol' boys mentality to the majority of hunters, especially without understanding the nuance of each situation detailed(using this word loosely), in the lawsuit.

I have been hunting bears up in Idaho this year in an area with a lot of grizzlies. I tagged along on a hunt with a buddy a few years ago in the same area. He sets out bait, and if a grizzly shows up on the camera, moves the bait site a long ways away.

As soon as the grizzlies hit a bait site, the black bears stop showing up, and so do we as the hunters. We are trying to minimize the risk of a dangerous encounter, and I tend to think, most folks are trying to do the same. We also carry spray on our chest holsters at all times even at camp. I think everyone should exercise proper respect and caution.

In this particular area, baiting is far and away the most effective way to hunt black bears. It's extremely thick, and the terrain doesn't allow for much, if any, glassing or spot and stalk opportunities. Almost all the black bears that are killed in the area are killed over bait.

By outlawing baiting in additional areas(some areas already prohibit baiting) you are in effect shutting down the black bear harvest. You better believe that those levying the lawsuit are keenly aware of this fact.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> ...I'd be fine with requiring elk hunters to carry pepper spray to help curb self defense bear kills during field dressing. I thought all you guys carried spray anyway?


Okay. That's a reasonable regulation. Especially if the spray is going to be provided with the permit. But are you ready to take it to the next step: "deadly" force completely outlawed and you can only use the spray to defend yourself?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Kwalk -- thank you for your reply and perspective.



Kwalk3 said:


> As soon as the grizzlies hit a bait site, the black bears stop showing up, and so do we as the hunters. We are trying to minimize the risk of a dangerous encounter, and I tend to think, most folks are trying to do the same. We also carry spray on our chest holsters at all times even at camp. I think everyone should exercise proper respect and caution.


This is exactly what I'm asking for.



Vanilla said:


> ...are you ready to take it to the next step: "deadly" force completely outlawed and you can only use the spray to defend yourself?


See, this is the issue I have. Why be ignorant and wait for the lying enviros to push us into a corner? Why not do as Kwalk mentions, and exercise proper respect and caution.

I'm not asking to ban bait stations.
I'm not on the side of those who are looking to ban bait, or hunting in general.

I just know too many hunters that wouldn't hesitate in the least at popping a lion, bear, or wolf if the opportunity presents itself. I find that to be in poor taste and fear it only gives those who want these hunts ended more traction.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I know those people exist, and I find it despicable as well. But none of that is what we are talking about here. You've now completely changed the conversation from this lawsuit and what they are alleging to a discussion on enforcing already existing poaching laws. 

I don't think any reasonable person will disagree with you on that.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The problem, I think, is that we personally know people who use self-defense as an excuse to kill predators when self-defense wasn’t really what was needed. What really was needed was some common sense and ethics. What PBH and I would like is for something to be done to eliminate the poor ethics of hunters who knowingly and willingly bait in predators and kill them without hunting tags and call self-defense later. How is that problem curbed or reduced? Because really it is these types of hunters that lead to lawsuits and broad paint strokes illustrating us all...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> You've now completely changed the conversation from this lawsuit and what they are alleging to a discussion on enforcing already existing poaching laws.


No, the discussion remains the same: The perception is that black bear hunters are killing grizzly bears illegally and unethically. Intentions don't matter. The perception does. What will hunters do to correct the perception?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> The problem, I think, is that we personally know people who use self-defense as an excuse to kill predators when self-defense wasn't really what was needed. What really was needed was some common sense and ethics. What PBH and I would like is for something to be done to eliminate the poor ethics of hunters who knowingly and willingly bait in predators and kill them without hunting tags and call self-defense later. How is that problem curbed or reduced? Because really it is these types of hunters that lead to lawsuits and broad paint strokes illustrating us all...


Enforce already existing poaching laws. What you just described is poaching. It's not even an "ethics" issue that is up for debate. What you just described is illegal already under the law. Just enforce it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, where is the line then between what is and is not self defense? Because that is debatable.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Not really. The law is actually pretty clear on that one when it comes to the defense of self or others. Just enforce what we already have, and your concern is basically fixed. Of course there will always be people that try to play the system, and some succeed. But I'm not concerned about creating new laws just for those that won't follow what we already have and only punish those that are already following the current law.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, basically you are ok with allowing grizzlies to be killed over black bear bait stations under the guise of self defense. Because what you consider as reasonable protection and a dangerous situation I may not and vice versa. Just because a grizzly comes to a bait station is that “reasonable” and a legitimate “danger?” I think there is a lot of gray area and is why we have the problem we do. And, I am certainly in favor of more restrictive laws to reduce what I perceive as a problem. In fact, I also know Utah is and has discussed more restrictive laws with baiting for this very reason.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, basically you are ok with allowing grizzlies to be killed over black bear bait stations under the guise of self defense. Because what you consider as reasonable protection and a dangerous situation I may not and vice versa. Just because a grizzly comes to a bait station is that "reasonable" and a legitimate "danger?" I think there is a lot of gray area and is why we have the problem we do. And, I am certainly in favor of more restrictive laws to reduce what I perceive as a problem. In fact, I also know Utah is and has discussed more restrictive laws with baiting for this very reason.


Since hunters are more likely to get into these incidents, with or without bait, maybe we should ban hunting outright? Then there is less risk and no guise, right?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

In terms of baiting, maybe. Maybe baiting should be outlawed. I wouldn’t complain. Especially when it comes to baiting deer.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> In terms of baiting, maybe. Maybe baiting should be outlawed. I wouldn't complain. Especially when it comes to baiting deer.


I am just saying.. most grizzly's that are shot, other than by wildlife agencies, are by hunters. So after baiting is banned, what would then be the leading cause of grizzly encounters that result in death? Still hunting. So what do we do then?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, why don’t we create restrictive regulations that allow for legal grizzly bear hunting? From what I understand—which isn’t much—we don’t have legal grizzly bear hunts in place in the lower 48. So, why not come up with a plan that reduces the number of grizzlies killed for self defense or illegally so that hunters can pursue them legally? Doesn’t it bug you that Montana doesn’t have grizzly tags in part because a number of bears are killed either illegally or for “self-defense?”


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, why don't we create restrictive regulations that allow for legal grizzly bear hunting?\


WE TRIED!

It's these same groups that have stopped that. If I remember, there are tags that were drawn already for said legal grizzly hunts.

It's a vicious circle. Until we can manage harvest, we will continue to see increased numbers (and bravery) from bears and continue to have incidents. We have lost human lives due to it as well. Spending time off the path makes it more likely to have an incident. No one does that more than hunters. So maybe we should stay on the beaten path?

Everyone on here saying "self defense" and mocking it sort-of is acting like these incidents aren't investigated. So blame the investigator for not holding up the law, or if they are then we need to stop complaining. We can't start down the path of reducing risk via restriction, because hunting is the biggest risk.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Random -- isn't that exactly what the issue is?

It's perception. These groups view hunter's actions as bad, and they play upon that. Why do we just sit back and complain and call them names?? Why don't we do something proactive with good intentions to counter their perception?

The issue, again, is that it is perceived that black bear hunters are killing grizzly bears over bait. HOW DO WE FIX this perception? 

A: we prevent mistaken identity.
B: we stop killing them in "self defense" (maybe by using pepper spray instead of .308)
C: we prosecute those individuals that illegally kill the wrong species
D: we stop putting ourselves in risky situations with potential for conflict (see Kwalk's responses)


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> In terms of baiting, maybe. Maybe baiting should be outlawed. I wouldn't complain. Especially when it comes to baiting deer.


It seems you are using personal experiences with the yahoos that are baiting deer and killing black bears to color your judgment about this situation, which is a different animal entirely(literally and figuratively).

Again, if you think baiting should be outlawed everywhere there is a chance of an encounter with Grizzlies I believe that opens the hunting community up to a lot more restriction as to what we can do in Grizzly Country period, and largely eliminates. or seriously lessens the harvest of black bears in some areas.

Also, looking at the lawsuit, more than half the cited examples had nothing to do with bait. So let's eliminate all bear hunting in areas that Grizzlies live? Also, the lawsuit didn't detail whether any of the kills were determined to not meet the criteria of self defense, or if any of the shooters were prosecuted or penalized in any way.

As someone who appreciates that Grizzlies, wolves, and cougars exist on the landscape and play a vital role in the systems they live in, I would hate to see other hunting activities restricted because these animals simply exist in an area. I'm much more alert and aware of my surroundings in Grizzly country. I take proper precautions, and I think that all should do the same.

Sounds like the guys down your way are pieces of work. That sucks for all of us. There are also people that bait responsibly(deer and bears) and aren't looking for an excuse to shoot a bear in "self-defense."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> WE TRIED!
> 
> It's these same groups that have stopped that. If I remember, there are tags that were drawn already for said legal grizzly hunts.


Wait a second, I thought the grizzly had been delisted opening the door for hunting. I also thought that state agencies like Montana's made the singular determination that grizzly numbers did not warrant any hunts. Am I wrong?

If not, wouldn't the decrease of illegally killed or "self-defense" killed bears allow for more bears and possibly grizzly permits? From what I understand it is not enviro groups stopping grizzly hunts but grizzly population numbers.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> It seems you are using personal experiences with the yahoos that are baiting deer and killing black bears to color your judgment about this situation, which is a different animal entirely(literally and figuratively).
> How? Explain. Isn't that the same thing happening in grizzly country?
> Again, if you think baiting should be outlawed everywhere there is a chance of an encounter with Grizzlies I believe that opens the hunting community up to a lot more restriction as to what we can do in Grizzly Country period, and largely eliminates. or seriously lessens the harvest of black bears in some areas.
> I didn't say everywhere but possibly...not because of an encounter but because people kill them when they don't have to.
> ...


There are also people who hunt responsibly but that doesn't mean that we don't need some hunting regulations. In the end, though, my concern is not bear baiting in Montana but Utah. Why do we need it? Could we not eliminate at least deer baiting in Utah to eliminate the unnecessary killing of black bears?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Wait a second, I thought the grizzly had been delisted opening the door for hunting. I also thought that state agencies like Montana's made the singular determination that grizzly numbers did not warrant any hunts. Am I wrong?
> 
> If not, wouldn't the decrease of illegally killed or "self-defense" killed bears allow for more bears and possibly grizzly permits? From what I understand it is not enviro groups stopping grizzly hunts but grizzly population numbers.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ear-protection-wyoming-idaho-hunt/1417295002/

They were delisted, and then a judge reinstated the protection. So unless I am missing something then yes, in this case you are mistaken.

Wyoming's governor signed a law this year again allowing it, and they are being sued.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

PBH said:


> Random -- isn't that exactly what the issue is?
> 
> It's perception. These groups view hunter's actions as bad, and they play upon that. Why do we just sit back and complain and call them names?? Why don't we do something proactive with good intentions to counter their perception?
> 
> ...


We already try all of those, C is something you are subject to anytime you fire a weapon.

Before we develop some elaborate plan to be proactive - we should have actual knowledge of these situations. What was the context, other than just "bait"? Were any of the hunters prosecuted? Were they even at their bait stations at the time? Etc...

We can't just determine a course of action without information. I already had a proposal.

In pretty much EVERYTHING, education benefits show far better improvement than laws (drugs, killing, abuse, and even hunting). However, we don't know what education is missing because we are assuming things without context. That's what groups like this usually want (same goes for both sides of an argument, the less context they have to give behind something the easier it is to sell).


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

It's arguable whether thats actually what's happening in Grizzly Country, Details are light and you're taking a group with ulterior motives at their word without any details of these incidents. Again, there are more instances of bear hunters killing grizzlies NOT over bait than over bait. So should we eliminate all black bear hunting? That appears to be the bigger problem according to the cited examples. 

The last year I can find statistics for in the unit I've been hunting, 18 bears were killed. 10 bait 5 hounds, 2 incidental, and 1 still hunt/spot and stalk. So, allowing that there may be some substitution to other methods, I think it's a reasonable inference that eliminating baiting may cut the harvest in the area in half. Whether that's your intention or not, you are proposing an elimination of a lot of the bear hunting in these areas.

Additionally, where do you think it stops? The 5 hound harvests would be next on the list of groups such as this.

It's the erosion of current and historical hunting methods in areas of Idaho that I would prefer not to see happen. Especially not on the say so of a group that is certainly antagonistic to all hunting of bears, not just over bait.


I think there are many things from precautions to prosecution that can remedy some of this negative perception and not lead down a path that restricts effective and legal methods of hunting.

And if you're concerned with deer baiting in Utah, you're discussing a different issue altogether. That's not what the initial post or lawsuit were referencing. You've made it about that, but I don't have strong opinions either way. If baiting deer went away lots of deer would still be killed. That's not necessarily the same story with Black Bears in the areas of Idaho and Wyoming referenced in the lawsuit.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, basically you are ok with allowing grizzlies to be killed over black bear bait stations under the guise of self defense.


Nope, I never said that. You can try and paint that picture all you want, but it makes you look silly.



wyoming2utah said:


> Because what you consider as reasonable protection and a dangerous situation I may not and vice versa. Just because a grizzly comes to a bait station is that "reasonable" and a legitimate "danger?" I think there is a lot of gray area and is why we have the problem we do.


It doesn't matter what you or I "think" is reasonable. It is what the law states. Whether you realize it or not, self defense and defense of others is articulated in the law. It's pretty clear. That doesn't mean that the determination is easy, but that's why people like me have jobs. We get paid to make those determinations, based upon the law. Not what you or I think it SHOULD be. But take the facts, apply the law, and make a determination. If self defense doesn't apply, charge them with poaching. If it was a true self defense situation, according to the law (not what you or I think is reasonable), then no charges are needed and we don't need to worry about it. A grizzly bear simply showing up at a bait station when a hunter is there is not a per se life in danger situation. And I submit to you that this is not what is happening here. You are buying into BS if you are buying that. But keep taking the bait hook, line, and sinker from a group that wants to take fishing and hunting ENTIRELY away from you. Let me know how that goes.



wyoming2utah said:


> And, I am certainly in favor of more restrictive laws to reduce what I perceive as a problem. In fact, I also know Utah is and has discussed more restrictive laws with baiting for this very reason.


I find it funny that in one thread you talk about rules and laws just to make people feel better and how you are not on board with that, then on this one you are advocating for more strict rules that will only make you feel better. I know you heppys are the ultimate contrarians and a lot of that goes to that goal, but the dichotomy in these two current posts from today is not lost on me.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

From here:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/BearBaiting-COMPLAINT.pdf



> WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, WILDERNESS WATCH,Plaintiffs,
> 
> v.
> 
> ...





Steve G said:


> Wildlife Guardians Mission Statement
> 
> https://wildearthguardians.org/about-us/mission-vision-history/
> 
> ...


 Quoted for emphasis. Looks like a bunch of anti-hunting tree huggers.

Hey, check this out, this guys clearly do not believe in wildlife management:

https://wildearthguardians.org/wildlife-conservation/end-the-war-on-wildlife/



> Few Americans realize that as taxpayers we help fund a program called "Wildlife Services," a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. This ironically named program doesn't serve wildlife. It wages a clandestine war on America's wildlife. Every year, the Wildlife Services killing machine poisons, traps, and guns down millions of our nation's most majestic animals-from imperiled swift foxes to bald eagles-at the request of a minority of ranching and agricultural interests.
> 
> Wildlife Services' policies are not driven by modern scientific evidence that recognizes the crucial role carnivores play in ensuring healthy ecosystems. Instead, they are motivated by archaic prejudices against iconic species like cougars, coyotes, bears, and wolves.
> 
> At WildEarth Guardians, we recognize and advocate for native species' inherent right to exist and thrive. Why? Because it's their birthright-this is their home and their last refuge. We are working to end Wildlife Services' trapping, poisoning, and aerial gunning of native species on our public lands and shift the paradigm to coexistence between humans and wildlife.


 Umm, yeah....dig a round their website some more. These are clearly some tree hugging liberals who are clearly against wildlife management, hunting, and are definately NOT on our side. If people like these have their way, we won't be able to do anything in the backcountry except observe wildlife with binoculars from afar in established viewing areas - and nothing but.

They can go to hell as far as i'm concerned.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> If people like these have their way, we won't be able to do anything in the backcountry except observe wildlife with binoculars from afar in established viewing areas - and nothing but.
> 
> They can go to hell as far as i'm concerned.


So, how do we - as hunters - combat that perception that the wildearthguardians paint, specifically with instances of grizzly bears being killed by black bear hunters?

It's isn't the wildearthguardians that we need to be worried about. It's the common, every-day general public that sees the headlines made by the lying, evil enviros that make hunters look bad. What do we do, as hunters, to correct the misperception?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

PBH said:


> So, how do we - as hunters - combat that perception that the wildearthguardians paint, specifically with instances of grizzly bears being killed by black bear hunters?
> 
> It's isn't the wildearthguardians that we need to be worried about. It's the common, every-day general public that sees the headlines made by the lying, evil enviros that make hunters look bad. What do we do, as hunters, to correct the misperception?


I don't think many in the general public bat an eye at this. There are hunters and anti-hunters. This story isn't big enough for most the people in between. The anti-hunters will always have an easier time in the media because their story doesn't end up with anything dead.

It's hard to paint killing anything in a positive light for those who haven't/don't do it. It's true for hunters, for military, for cops, etc... the non-death narrative is always easier to tell.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Random -- that's exactly my point. We'll bitch and moan and complain about these groups, but we won't do anything to change the perception...


Maybe we should. That was my whole point to this 6 page discussion. Thanks.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> So, how do we - as hunters - combat that perception that the wildearthguardians paint, specifically with instances of grizzly bears being killed by black bear hunters?
> 
> It's isn't the wildearthguardians that we need to be worried about. It's the common, every-day general public that sees the headlines made by the lying, evil enviros that make hunters look bad. What do we do, as hunters, to correct the misperception?


Justifying what they are saying with absolutely ZERO information to back it up is not how I would suggest doing that, PBH. But that's just me.

And I really couldn't care less what they say. I'm not sure I'm concerned about the lies and misperceptions they create at all. Most people, even non-hunters, see through these people.

And here I thought PBH's point all along was just to argue? If you had a point that has nothing to do with what you said 6 pages ago, you should have just said that then.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

PBH said:


> So, how do we - as hunters - combat that perception that the wildearthguardians paint, specifically with instances of grizzly bears being killed by black bear hunters?
> 
> It's isn't the wildearthguardians that we need to be worried about. It's the common, every-day general public that sees the headlines made by the lying, evil enviros that make hunters look bad. What do we do, as hunters, to correct the misperception?


How to combat their painted perception? I have no idea aside from taking someone hunting. Really, the only way to change someones mind is to make them walk the metaphorical mile. There is a common misconception that hunting "is as easy as going out in the woods and shooting some poor dumb animal that never stood a chance with a high powered rifle."

Most people don't realize that you really do have to earn your food - but the idea of earning food without directly plunking down cash at the supermarket is a foreign idea in and of itself to some people. Society in general is well insulated from the messier aspects of what it takes to sustain life. In this modern age, steaks come wrapped in plastic from Macy's or Costco, they don't come from cows. :roll: Nobody ever has to see the cow get slaughtered - out of sight, out of mind. Since hunting takes out the middle man, the messier aspects of sustaining life are right out in front, and it's not something some people are used to seeing.

Not to mention, as with any group of people, there are bad apples in every bunch. All it takes is one jackwagon doing something stupid, and everyone else is going to be painted with the same brush. That's human nature, and I'd be lying if i said i didn't do that myself.

Another thing is the news media. 90% of it has a liberal bias. Anti-hunter groups are liberal; don't plan on nor expect a fair shake from the news media.

I'm reminded that supposedly, there is a decline in hunters across the country. Here in Utah, I do not believe that in the slightest, but if it is true, it doesn't exactly help our cause either, but it's worth highlighting the pitman-robertson act.

edit: Share this with any anti-hunters you happen to know


----------



## StillAboveGround (Aug 20, 2011)

How many of you would bait for black bears in Grizzly country? Not me...
Seems like they are trying to win the Darwin Award.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

StillAboveGround said:


> How many of you would bait for black bears in Grizzly country? Not me...
> Seems like they are trying to win the Darwin Award.


I guess that makes me the dummy here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

StillAboveGround said:


> How many of you would bait for black bears in Grizzly country? Not me...
> Seems like they are trying to win the Darwin Award.


So you would spot and stalk the unit with grizzly? You are still going to come across them.

Most people who have legal permission to do things will use that to try and harvest their animal. That's what it's for.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I love to try and convince an anti hunter that I hunt 'cause I need the food. I know it and they know it that that is simply not the case. You look like a fool if you use this argument when talking to a anti. Oh, sure, you can mention in passing that the food is nice, but get real, the food is way down on the list of "why I hunt".
Now on that list is a bullet point called "I hunt to kill". Hunting bear over bait is heavily supported by this "reason why" point and only lightly supported by such points as "I love the challenge", or, "it is a natural predatory thing" (we are predators), or even the weak point of "it's legal, hence it's moral". 
Sit a spell and think about why you hunt and kill. Make up a list of bullet points and name the animals and arrange the list following each animal and hunting method. It might just surprise you and actually give you some real honest ammo when talking with a fence sitting anti hunter.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Interesting responses, I find myself agreeing with most. It's my opinion that Guardians is once again following their philosophy of serial litigation, not only to keep filling their coffers but to haul in members by 'saving the grizzly'. The point brought up several times here about the lack of information at each griz kill site is very relevant. It would seem there really isn't much info to fill that void. Guardians is blaming adequate record keeping on the feds part (USFWS).

Calling them serial litigators is being nice, it goes much farther than that. They use the federal court system to intimidate, stall, and force re-evaluations of current or aged guidelines, all the while moving ever forward to dismantle hunting bit by bit. They cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in lawsuits every year, and their efforts cost communities and counties billions of dollars. From 2007 to 2011, Guardians sued the feds 76 times over just environmental issues. During that same time, they recieved $680,492 in tax money via grants, etc. from the feds. Amazing. And to top it off, when they win their case, and as I recall if they win a 'portion' of their case, their attorney fees are paid for, again by tax money via the EAJA (equal access to justice act). That act needs to be looked at again, hard.

This whole thing gets me fired up, but there is nothing at this point we hunters can really do, except wait for the case to go through the courts and watch for the outcome.

I do agree with PBH and others that as hunters we need to step up and be more mindful of how we go about things, and unfortunately, how what we do is perceived by the public in general.

The USFWS had dropped the ball more than a couple of times over how they do or NOT do their job according to pertaining laws. The wolf litigations exposed them bigtime. State wildlife agencies also need to be more vigilant and proactive in identifying issues that may have deleterious for the hunting community.

Just for additional information, here is a study done on the economic impacts of lawsuits filed by Guardians and others:

https://www.strata.org/economic-impacts-wild-earth-guardians-litigation-local-communities/

Some thoughts by the press about them:
The Wall Street Journal weighed in against the WildEarth Guardians in December 2012, with an opinion piece:[10]

"Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson testified to Congress in June that taxpayer money is being spent in litigation over these listings. For instance, the petition to list the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard was originally filed by a radical environmental group, the WildEarth Guardians.

Interestingly, this group collected $680,492 in tax money (as grants and the like) from Fish and Wildlife between 2007 and 2011. During that time the group sued the federal agency 76 times over alleged environmental violations.

The WildEarth Guardians are also behind the petition to list the Spot-Tailed Earless Lizard under the Endangered Species Act. Not coincidentally, the range of this particular lizard includes portions of the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas, which is emerging as one of the top oil- and gas-producing regions in the country."

https://www.cpr.org/news/newsbeat/r...t-wildearth-guardians-over-mining-controversy


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

BPturkeys said:


> I love to try and convince an anti hunter that I hunt 'cause I need the food. I know it and they know it that that is simply not the case. You look like a fool if you use this argument when talking to a anti. Oh, sure, you can mention in passing that the food is nice, but get real, the food is way down on the list of "why I hunt".
> Now on that list is a bullet point called "I hunt to kill". Hunting bear over bait is heavily supported by this "reason why" point and only lightly supported by such points as "I love the challenge", or, "it is a natural predatory thing" (we are predators), or even the weak point of "it's legal, hence it's moral".
> Sit a spell and think about why you hunt and kill. Make up a list of bullet points and name the animals and arrange the list following each animal and hunting method. It might just surprise you and actually give you some real honest ammo when talking with a fence sitting anti hunter.


Food is down on the list of "why" as you say, but it can be thought of as a practical reason. One angle is, "100% organic". Seriously, some people are into that. No steroids, no crowded farms, just organic and natural. That appeals to some people.

Personally, I don't hunt to kill. Killing to me, is immaterial, and is a non issue. It's part of hunting, it isn't something i'm excited about, nor something i feel bad about. If someone were to ask me what was the first thing I felt after pulling a trigger, I'd say, "Recoil". The second thing would be exhilaration. Not because I killed, but because I worked hard, I rose to the challenge both mentally and physically, and I was successful. The bonus prize, is that 100% organic and natural food i get to bring home, utilizing that animal as best I can, and if possible letting next to nothing go to waste.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

LH, you're absolutely correct about the importance some hunters put on the "meat" part of the hunt. I have for years talked to people about the "all natural" qualities of wild game. Even in this polluted world we live in, wild game is still "mother natures finest food".
My own grandson is one of those that, and I say "those" because many of us older hunters never gave much thought to "natural, organic, etc" when we where younger, will only eat wild game. Beside the "all natural" aspect, he is adamant about the negative environmental impact of the meat industry on our world. Oh, yes, he is an "environmentalist"...but he is no wacko, or nutjob, etc, he is a sound young man of good mind and well thought out reason. He hunts and fishes and is part of the next generation of hunters/environmentalists that us old duds need to lend an ear to.


----------

