# Grizz hunts gone, back on Endangered Species List



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

https://trib.com/lifestyles/recreat...63cf2b347.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Pretty much a forgone conclusion since they were taken off the list, just a matter of time. Will be interesting to see the direction this goes, and who will blink first...


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

"Christensen ruled that the case was "not about the ethics of hunting" but about whether federal officials adequately considered threats to the species' long-term recovery. In the judge's view, the answer was no."


Pay attention to the last line there "In the judge's view, the answer is no."


What in the hell is that? Facts don't give a **** about the judge's views. Someone needs to slap that hippie with some knowledge.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*This is NOT Facebook*



Ray said:


> "Christensen ruled that the case was "not about the ethics of hunting" but about whether federal officials adequately considered threats to the species' long-term recovery. In the judge's view, the answer was no."
> 
> Pay attention to the last line there "In the judge's view, the answer is no."
> 
> What in the hell is that? Facts don't give a **** about the judge's views. Someone needs to slap that hippie with some knowledge.


Please, we do not threaten to slap US District judges on the UWN.

Actually it's the judge's duty to make decisions by weighing all the facts from a broad number and range of affected groups; those that are pro, con, middle of the road when it comes to allowing a grizzly hunt in the lower 48.

I've said this before on the Forum: I doubt if they will have a grizzly bear hunt in the near future in Wyoming. What some here fail to understand is that we hunters are a minority and many times form, and vocalize, our opinions on what we pull out of our rear ends, not on science.

In closing this old hippie is all for a Wyoming grizzly hunt. My opinion, my view, is based on first-hand observations: walked across the entire Yellowstone National Park before you were allowed to carry; walked the Wind Rivers from end to end twice, once solo; spent 19 days in the Absorokas on a bighorn sheep hunt and seen all the grizzlies, some up too close for comfort, I want to see for a long time. Man, there's a lot of grizzlies in the Yellowstone ecosystem. So looking at those exposures to Rocky Mountain grizzlies I feel a hunt would be warranted. Just an opinion n, narrow in view, not based on science.

.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

"Please, we do not threaten to slap US District judges on the UWN."


Physically slapping someone and theoretically slapping someone with knowledge are two different things. Now, if I said someone should slap some knowledge into him, you would have an argument; but that isn't what was stated nor was it my intent.


There was no physical threat made, at all. Read it once more, if you must.


Additionally, my thoughts aren't just my personal opinion. I've based my thoughts off of science, science done by those the state and federal government trust to employ. Just because I'm not out there physically conducting surveys or experiments doesn't mean I base my opinion off of something I "pulled out of my rear end". 


That might be the way you come to a conclusion, but not me.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Ray said:


> "Please, we do not threaten to slap US District judges on the UWN."
> 
> Physically slapping someone and theoretically slapping someone with knowledge are two different things. Now, if I said someone should slap some knowledge into him, you would have an argument; but that isn't what was stated nor was it my intent.
> 
> ...


Do not do it again, thanks.

.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Or else what?


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Don't do what again? Say something you misread or failed to grasp the intended message to?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Ray said:


> Or else what?


You'll be removed from the Forum.

.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

So now I'm liable for the way you read a message? What is this, Nazi Germany?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Man, I think those who don’t respect the forum elders should be slapped sometimes......theoretically of course. ————SS


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)

Goob I didn't want to say anything but you need to be schooled. You wrote "This is not Facebook" what you should have wrote is "This is not Twitter"...Facebook is where you post what you ate for dinner. Instagram is where you post silly memes, Snapchat is where you um..we won't talk about Snapchat. But Twitter is where you get violent with political ideology. Please keep this in mind in the future...


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Springville Shooter said:


> Man, I think those who don't respect the forum elders should be slapped sometimes......theoretically of course. ----SS


Let's see if this twerp gets the same response for threats made.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

"...In the 48-page ruling, Judge Christensen said the USFWS determination that the grizzly was ready to come off federal protection was "arbitrary and capricious because it is both illogical and inconsistent with the cautious approach demanded by the ESA (Endangered Species Act)."

Christensen added that USFWS, in analyzing threats to the Yellowstone bears, failed to account for how delisting the 750 Yellowstone-area bears could affect the estimated 1,200 in five other recovery area. Christensen also said the USFWS failed to prove to him that genetic diversity would be viable with 750 Yellowstone-area bears."

https://buckrail.com/griz-hunt-is-off-bears-back-on-endangered-species-list/

For a little 'light' reading, here is the full 48 page ruling by Judge Christensen:

https://2zk8ci15bz0240i2m999gkf1-wp...ntent/uploads/2018/09/Grizzly-bear-ruling.pdf

I'll withhold personal comment on the above until I read the ruling, while I bite my tongue hard, very hard...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Ray said:


> Let's see if this twerp gets the same response for threats made.


Ray, please don't run this thread down the toilet like you did the grizz mauling thread, thanks!


----------



## natej12 (Sep 25, 2018)

*Missing the real point of this ruling*

Lost in the discussion here is the practical effect this ruling is going to have in Utah in as early as 3 years and no less than 5. Given the gap between the 2007 failure of the feds to make appropriate findings and this attempt, count on another ten years before they try again at delisting if ever.

Grizzlies have integrated well into the Cokeville area and have been spotted west of there on the waterfowl refuge areas just miles from the Utah border. A few roaming boars going to be crossing into Rich County within 2-3 years with a breeding population to follow within 3-5 years after that. Once they hit the mountainous areas in Rich County they are going to be in Cache within a year which is some of the primest grizzly habitat in the country, especially as they are becoming less and less wary of people every year.

The other path for the grizzlies will take a bit longer as they expand into Bear Lake and Caribou Counties in Idaho but once they get into the mountains west of Bear Lake, it won't take long.

Get ready for Utah Fish and Game denials and an increase in what they will term unprecedented "Black Bear" aggression.


----------



## natej12 (Sep 25, 2018)

This is Wyoming's fish and game map showing expansion since 1990 to 2015. You can count on it being about 25-50 miles too conservative at least. Note how fast the bears have moved between 2010 and 2015. 700 bears BS. Its at least double that number

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/Wildlife/Large Carnivore/animated_bears_1fps.gif

Here is their conservative estimated range in 2016.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/Wildlife/Large Carnivore/2016-Distrib-for-website.jpg

Since then they have pretty much spread down the rest of the Wyoming range as far south as Cokeville. It doesn't take much imagination to see where they are going to be in 5 years. Good or bad I guess from your perspective. If you don't think they will impact your recreation habits though spend a week north of Dubois without bear protection...lol


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

https://buckrail.com/cheney-introduces-legislation-to-again-remove-grizzly-from-federal-protection/

Looks like they're already taking steps to de-list


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Grizz have expanded well beyond the maps here in East Idaho. There are resident populations now, in the Big Hole Mountains, which are the mountains between Rexburg and Driggs - also where Kelly Canyon ski area is. Which is also where we pick huckleberries. We do nothing up there without our bear spray. The grizz have expanded well beyond YNP and GTNP. In northern Montana, they Grizz have expanded out of Glacier and the Bob Marshall Wilderness, and east across I-15, north of Great Falls. There are reports of Grizz as far east as the Missouri River Breaks. 

I'm so dang tired of the political activism of the ESA. Populations are order of magnitude larger than recovery objectives. Under all scenarios, protections still apply in YNP and GTNP. With that protection, there are no scenarios for hunting that would ever drop populations below objectives. 

Dreams of expansion into all historic ranges is irresponsible and undesirable. I'm all for recovery. I'm all for grizz being restored into fairly intact wilderness even, like in the national parks and even the wilderness areas. But in areas where multiple use guides the landscape, there must be population control. Heck, even in pre-European settlement, the natives hunted them out of sheer protection and preservation.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

No, hunters are not as minority as some may think. Hunters just are not as vocal as the extreme activist group's are and most hunters work a regular full-time job prohibiting them to attend every protest rally and gathering and because of this, are not as well organized as they should be.

Hunters and the hunting population, in essence, are their own worst enemy. Don't believe me, check out all the bickering that goes on in hunting related forums.

Where this federal judge failed is to incorporate the full gambit of evidence before writing an opinion of whether or not wildlife biologists (which by the way, know much more then he does) actually knew what they were doing in accordance with the stipulations set forth by the ESA.

I suggest the judge stick to interpreting the law and let wildlife managers continue to do what they do best...


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

Unfortunately, politicking is what is happening all over the place. Look at the mess of the supreme court nomination. I don't care what side of the political spectrum you're on, that's a mess. Dirty tricks by all. 

I digress. What I don't understand is how the judge, who does not have any sort of wildlife biology background that I could find, would know better than multiple state biologists (and feds by the way) what is good for the population. Find the right judge for your cause, and I guess you can get what you want? 

I was talking to my dad a while back who lives in Cache Valley. This is not gospel knowledge, nor a sure witness, but he was told that the state was doing bear studies up on the Cache to see where bears were moving and how. They got grizz fur in a fence or somehow already. They couldn't find the bear, but the evidence is that grizzly bears will end up on the Cache and Utah, just like wolves because of natural migration routes. I'm all for bears and natural population expansion. I will certainly alter my routine and carry pepper spray or something like that in the hills if there are grizz around. I've tromped through some very prime bear habitat up on the Cache in my lifetime. I haven't seen any, but that does not mean they're not there. 

Point is, a hunt on a stable (and growing) population will not harm the management objective. 22 bears will not wipe out the bears. I'd guess there are probably more bears, wolves, and cats for that matter than we realize. They're hard to find because they're elusive. We can't count every one of them, we just have to rely on scientific modeling to predict the population. Just as we predict the population and growth of humans. 

"I only believe in science." Thank you Nacho Libre. Thank you.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I haven't yet taken the time to read the decision, but I am disappointed (and unsurprised) by the result.

I am not one that advocates for the all out removal of wolves/bears/cats or even coyotes/varmints for that matter. I believe that sound conservation, which hunters should be and usually are the primary advocates for, includes proper conservation of all species. The grizzly bear population has exceeded the benchmarks and goals, and turning management over to the states should make it the latest poster-child of the ESA's success. It is a shame that that isn't happening here. 

I do hope that grizzly bears and wolves both recover and reestablish themselves in Utah. Utah would be richer by the presence of wolves howling from the timber, or the heart stopping sight of a grizzly lazily sunning itself on a ridge. If you've never had either one of those experiences and you are an advocate against the reintroduction/expansion of these predators, I'd strongly invite you to reconsider. I'll go a step further and invite you to come play with me in Alaska sometime and we'll see if I can change your mind in person by giving you a taste of what could be possible in the Uintahs, Wasatch, Manti, La Sals, etc. 

But I would also hope that Utah (and the rest of the states) would be given back the authority to properly manage those animals. I know, I'm a hopeless dreamer.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

No johnny, I don't want that. Some of these places which you speak have a higher population of humans now and the [dangerous] encounters would increase significantly. There was a time and place of a full western expansion of these species, but that has faded into history...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

If there's still room in Europe for brown bears and wolves in countries more developed and more populated than the western United States then I would hate to think that that is a bygone possibility to return some iconic species to their historic range in the West. And like I said I recognize that not everybody agrees with me but you've got an open invitation to come up here and let me see if I can change your mind in person


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't know about grizley's back in California but a few of these down in La would help out a lot.

Forgot this forum don't like some pictures, I'm working on one.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

Ray said:


> Let's see if this twerp gets the same response for threats made.


Ha! Ha! Ben's a twerp! [snicker]


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> I haven't yet taken the time to read the decision, but I am disappointed (and unsurprised) by the result.
> 
> I am not one that advocates for the all out removal of wolves/bears/cats or even coyotes/varmints for that matter. I believe that sound conservation, which hunters should be and usually are the primary advocates for, includes proper conservation of all species. The grizzly bear population has exceeded the benchmarks and goals, and turning management over to the states should make it the latest poster-child of the ESA's success. It is a shame that that isn't happening here.
> 
> ...


I couldn't have said it better or agree more.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

longbow said:


> Ha! Ha! Ben's a twerp! [snicker]


Got that right.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

johnnycake said:


> If there's still room in Europe for brown bears and wolves in countries more developed and more populated than the western United States then I would hate to think that that is a bygone possibility to return some iconic species to their historic range in the West. And like I said I recognize that not everybody agrees with me but you've got an open invitation to come up here and let me see if I can change your mind in person


Been to AK and seen grizz. Been 'bou hunting as well and seen and heard wolves, still don't like the idea of an apex predator with no fear of man...

It's still not as practical as you may think and didn't say it was a lost situation, but just like millions of bison are not practical today to roam from TX to Canada, and OK to NV, having grizz spread across the entire west in every ranger district in every state is not practical either, unless dear judge Dana lightens up a little and "allows" us to hunt and skin grizz, pilgrim.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Alaska comparison isn't really a comparison. I've experienced both of what you're talking about - wolves howling through the night- and that was in Central Idaho BEFORE populations were supplemented in '95. I've nearly peed my pants in excitement seeing a grizz in the wild - in both YNP, and in Island Park. So I get it. 

Where the Alaska, and even YNP comparisons run out however, is that those areas for the most part, are not managed in attempted concert with livestock grazing. And really, that is the real rub - that wolves and grizz prey on livestock. As long as the multiple use mandate is in place, then my thought is that both grizz and wolves should be kept in check. If the livestock grazing goes away, then I'm OK with the other apex predators.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

To be clear, I did not say "because it works in Alaska it can work in Utah too." What I did was invite people to spend time with these apex predators if they haven't had experience with them. I also premised my position with the hope that States would be given management oversight of them.

I agree that multiple use and livestock play into complicating reintroductions, but I do not believe that it is a complete bar--Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon all have wolves and all but Oregon have grizzlies, and yet there is still livestock grazing on public lands in those states. Yes, conflicts occur but that is also part of multiple use. But admittedly, I have no sympathy for a sheep or cow killed by native wildlife while grazing on public lands that costs tax payers 2x as much to allow to be there than it costs the rancher to put it there. None.

And I have yet to hear a compelling argument from a hunter who is anti wolf/bear as to how that position fits in with proper conservation.


----------



## ZEKESMAN (Sep 14, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> No, hunters are not as minority as some may think. Hunters just are not as vocal as the extreme activist group's are and most hunters work a regular full-time job prohibiting them to attend every protest rally and gathering and because of this, are not as well organized as they should be.
> 
> Hunters and the hunting population, in essence, are their own worst enemy. Don't believe me, check out all the bickering that goes on in hunting related forums.
> 
> ...


Hunters are 6% of the US population. How is this not a minority? Anglers are 18% of the US population. Vic


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Tags or no tags, it looks like we might reach the proposed quota anyway. Self defense or self offense.......bears are eating lead these days.------SS


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Springville Shooter said:


> Tags or no tags, it looks like we might reach the proposed quota anyway. Self defense or self offense.......bears are eating lead these days.------SS


Amen brother.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

ZEKESMAN said:


> Hunters are 6% of the US population. How is this not a minority? Anglers are 18% of the US population. Vic


Comparing total number to total number, sure. Comparing against active involvement, not so much.

You are comparing with numbers of those who are indifferent and/or way underage. Post the number of hunters vs. those who actively take a stand against it...


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> The Alaska comparison isn't really a comparison. I've experienced both of what you're talking about - wolves howling through the night- and that was in Central Idaho BEFORE populations were supplemented in '95. I've nearly peed my pants in excitement seeing a grizz in the wild - in both YNP, and in Island Park. So I get it.
> 
> Where the Alaska, and even YNP comparisons run out however, is that those areas for the most part, are not managed in attempted concert with livestock grazing. And really, that is the real rub - that wolves and grizz prey on livestock. As long as the multiple use mandate is in place, then my thought is that both grizz and wolves should be kept in check. If the livestock grazing goes away, then I'm OK with the other apex predators.


As long as I can take out a grizz or wolf out of necessity, I'm OK with it as well. As long as states are allowed to manage these two predators through whatever means necessary, even without livestock grazing, I'm OK with it as well.

I am not OK with it as long as these two apex predators are allowed to run amok with no fear of humans...


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

natej12 said:


> Lost in the discussion here is the practical effect this ruling is going to have in Utah in as early as 3 years and no less than 5. Given the gap between the 2007 failure of the feds to make appropriate findings and this attempt, count on another ten years before they try again at delisting if ever.
> 
> Grizzlies have integrated well into the Cokeville area and have been spotted west of there on the waterfowl refuge areas just miles from the Utah border. A few roaming boars going to be crossing into Rich County within 2-3 years with a breeding population to follow within 3-5 years after that. Once they hit the mountainous areas in Rich County*they are going to be in Cache within a year which is some of the primest grizzly habitat in the country* , especially as they are becoming less and less wary of people every year.
> 
> ...


I'm having a hard time accepting this claim. Despite Cache/Rich being the last area in Utah to hold grizzlies the habitat that once supported them has been significantly depleted. Presettlement grizzlies lived primarily in the river and creek bottoms on the valley floor where there was an abundance of fish and berries. Settlement pushed the bears into the surrounding hills where their habitat was more marginal and where the bear eventually died out. I'm unconvinced that bear habitat conditions are better today than they were back then.

Cache/Rich doesn't have the huckleberries or white barked pine nuts that are staple items of grizzly diet farther to the north. Nor do we have oak brush patches full of acorns that the bear love like is present farther to the south. Almost every creek or river bottom that has service berry patches has a road up them. Even black bear struggle in the area, having one of the lowest population densities in the state.

Consequently, while a grizzly may wander into the Cache at some point in the future (though I think the 3-5 year scenario is a bit of a stretch), I don't foresee them gaining a foothold in the area anywhere near what it was in presettlement times.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Good point on the habitats Kevin. 

With the Idaho populations, the grizz are moving off the caldera in Island Park, down into the valleys. Grizz are now established in the areas along the Henry's Fork, downstream from Ashton. They are finding that the fruit orchards in the river are pretty good eating.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

One of the great ironies of the ESA is that it sometimes works against the very animals it tries to protect and help recover. For example, because states have seen, time and again and through various species, the inability to take over management and actually control populations of recovery species, they will fight tooth and nail to keep endangered species from being introduced into new areas or into areas these species once existed. I find this completely ironic and a sign that the ESA needs revising...

...IF I ever thought grizzlies could be completely managed and controlled through hunting by our state, I would welcome any expansion of their range to Utah. But, since I don't ever see management controlled by the state, I don't want them here.


----------

