Grizzly bear hunts

Roadtoaster

New member
The historic range of the grizzly covered the entire western half of the US and Canada and even into northern Mexico. Currently there are around 1500 in the lower 48 concentrated in small sections of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. There are very healthy populations in Canada (over 15,000) and Alaska (over 30,000) so they are not in danger of extinction. For people who live, ranch, hunt, and fish in the areas populated by grizzly bears there are mixed feelings about their growing numbers and range which has expanded well outside the national parks. Most of us want a balance between keeping bears in the region in healthy numbers and the ability to raise livestock, and enjoy the outdoors without looking over your shoulder every minute. Hunting for food (hunters eat bears) and sport has been the tool of choice for wildlife agencies with revenues from hunting permit sales preserving game populations. The grizzly population has grown to the point that bears run in on the sound of a shot when hunters kill other big game animals. This year a bowhunting guide was killed by two grizzly bears while preparing a client's elk to pack out. Explain to his wife and five children why grizzly should not be hunted. If people don't want bears hunted, may I propose relocating some of the grizzly bears back into their historic range in California, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado, etc and see how long it takes before residents of those states decide they don't want to carry bear spray when they go for their morning jog. After all the California State flag proudly displays a grizzly!
 

parkkitchings

Adventurer
Anybody who gets some kind of thrill from killing one of these majestic creatures in the name of "sport" is missing something. I use to hunt for subsistence and certainly understand that but the killing of anything for sport is a sad commentary on us as a species. I hunt Grizzlies every chance I get......with a camera, and when I walk away from a hunt it gratifies me to know that it will still be out there in the wild doing what Grizzlies do. Hopefully, some idiot doesn't come along and kill it for a thrill so they can post a picture of themselves sitting behind the dead animal with their dumbass smile giving a thumbs up. I shot this picture last month while in the rainforest of BC. Luckily, all sport hunting of Grizzlies has been banned in BC as of this year. I can only hope that others will follow suit and help save the Grizzly. If we lose the Grizzly we'll have lost the last piece of any wilderness we have remaining.

 
Last edited:

F350joe

Adventurer
https://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-metro-cities/. Look at this list. What do all these cities have in common? That’s right, no big ass bears.

Population studies are pretty good nowadays, if the science says it is okay to issue permits than do it. Wildlife corridors invite wildlife into backyards so if grizzlies start running off with babies it maybe justified to thin the population in some situations. I would love for grizzlies to be re-introduced into CA as long as an education campaign came with them. Im willing to bet any hunter would rather capture a bear live and relocate it, if they were not hunting for food. That's how real manly men do it and we do it with darts or a long stick.
IMG_1542.JPGwolf.JPGlion.pngdart.jpg

i think this is a picture of Zimm back in the day
download.jpg
 
Last edited:

jadmt

Well-known member
it would be cool to see some Grizzly bears relocated to Pelosi's back yard, heck I can think of a lot of places that they should be relocated to.
 

Roadtoaster

New member
It's all a matter of balance and perspective. Part of the reason we choose to live in Wyoming is for its wild nature and the ability to enjoy it, but we also need to live and work here. People around the world seem to think the whole state is a park or game preserve. A major reason for the court's ruling is the idea that the grizzly populations should be connected before taking them off the endangered species list. The problem is that the corridors connecting various populations are populated by people. Bears need much the same habitat as humans, they follow water and food sources and that is where humans have settled to farm, ranch and live. When humans and bears have encounters like the guide I described above, both lose. The bears were tracked down and killed after they mauled and killed the guide. The state's position is that the population has grown to the point of spilling outside the park as the bears are seeking more space and as that happens more encounters will follow. Not good for the bear or residents of the state or their livestock. The bear advocate position is that the expanding territory is good as it fulfills the goal of uniting populations of bears. That in a nutshell is the battle. In reality neither side wants to eliminate the bears, both want to protect them. It's more a matter of range that is acceptable to everyone. From these posts you can see it gets emotional which leads to misunderstanding of the issues and ultimately hurts the process. Balance is the key...finding it is tough. With a population of around 500,000 people in our state its easy for our voices to be lost...and this is our backyard. I'm all for reintroducing grizzly to other parts of their historic range but it will cause the same battle only worse in more populated states.
 
Last edited:

Monkeysee

Member
https://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-metro-cities/. Look at this list. What do all these cities have in common? That’s right, no big ass bears.
kind of funny that I live the country boy life and fear human willing in the cities, they come to the country and fear the wildlife
It's all a matter of balance and perspective. Part of the reason we choose to live in Wyoming is for its wild nature and the ability to enjoy it, but we also need to live and work here. People around the world seem to think the whole state is a park or game preserve. A major reason for the court's ruling is the idea that the grizzly populations should be connected before taking them off the endangered species list. The problem is that the corridors connecting various populations are populated by people. Bears need much the same habitat as humans, they follow water and food sources and that is where humans have settled to farm, ranch and live. When humans and bears have encounters like the guide I described above, both loose. The bears were tracked down and killed after they mauled and killed the guide. The state's position is that the population has grown to the point of spilling outside the park as the bears are seeking more space and as that happens more encounters will follow. Not good for the bear or residents of the state or their livestock. The bear advocate position is that the expanding territory is good as it fulfills the goal of uniting populations of bears. That in a nutshell is the battle. In reality neither side wants to eliminate the bears, both want to protect them. It's more a matter of range that is acceptable to everyone. From these posts you can see it gets emotional which leads to misunderstanding of the issues and ultimately hurts the process. Balance is the key...finding it is tough. With a population of around 500,000 people in our state its easy for our voices to be lost...and this is our backyard. I'm all for reintroducing grizzly to other parts of their historic range but it will cause the same battle only worse in more populated states.
Would you carry your sidearm on your horse, keep it in your pack or on your hip when in grizzly territory?

When out hunting elk, and the elk takes a day to track with an arrow in it, bleeding out, would you assume that maybe a bear might be tracking the slowly dying elk also?

I spoke with a hunter a couple of days ago just outside west jellystone and he informed me one of the problems is that he has no idea where a hunt kill and quarter is located where a bear maybe lurking. When he sees a fresh kill site he. takes GPS and gets the word out to the public. Great idea, maybe should be required? Gosh, Some people don't like rules.

Also noted a bunch of McMansions built in recent grizz habitat with more on the way.

Is it a people problem or a bear problem?



Also noted
 

jadmt

Well-known member
just because you trophy hunt doesn't mean you can't/don't eat the meat. I fully support a person's right to not hunt and to hunt only with a camera but I fully support the right of a person to shoot a grizzly or any other animal for that matter if legally taken, trophy or not.
 

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
All I ever get to see is little black bears, <200# around here lately. Harmless puppies at that size. Hopefully we'll get more, I haven't had any real bear problems of any sort in a long time.

Usually they're just searching for plants or Doritos when they wake me up in the morning. I have them walk through when I'm just in a bivvy sack all the time. No worries.
 

Roadtoaster

New member
kind of funny that I live the country boy life and fear human willing in the cities, they come to the country and fear the wildlife

Would you carry your sidearm on your horse, keep it in your pack or on your hip when in grizzly territory?

When out hunting elk, and the elk takes a day to track with an arrow in it, bleeding out, would you assume that maybe a bear might be tracking the slowly dying elk also?

I spoke with a hunter a couple of days ago just outside west jellystone and he informed me one of the problems is that he has no idea where a hunt kill and quarter is located where a bear maybe lurking. When he sees a fresh kill site he. takes GPS and gets the word out to the public. Great idea, maybe should be required? Gosh, Some people don't like rules.

Also noted a bunch of McMansions built in recent grizz habitat with more on the way.

Is it a people problem or a bear problem?



Also noted
kind of funny that I live the country boy life and fear human willing in the cities, they come to the country and fear the wildlife

Would you carry your sidearm on your horse, keep it in your pack or on your hip when in grizzly territory?

When out hunting elk, and the elk takes a day to track with an arrow in it, bleeding out, would you assume that maybe a bear might be tracking the slowly dying elk also?

I spoke with a hunter a couple of days ago just outside west jellystone and he informed me one of the problems is that he has no idea where a hunt kill and quarter is located where a bear maybe lurking. When he sees a fresh kill site he. takes GPS and gets the word out to the public. Great idea, maybe should be required? Gosh, Some people don't like rules.

Also noted a bunch of McMansions built in recent grizz habitat with more on the way.

Is it a people problem or a bear problem?



Also noted
Monkeysee, I'm with you, I'm more comfortable in the wild than in a city and statistically more likely to encounter a problem in a city. I do carry a sidearm often when hunting, camping, or fishing but also carry bear spray. In Wyoming you're more likely to die on the highway or from weather than from an encounter with wildlife. Most encounters that go bad are a surprise to the human at least and if not totally prepared (spray in hand) may not allow time to deploy the spray or firearm. Yes, people are the largest part of the problem due to a lack of respect or knowledge of the environment they are visiting.Hunters, especially bow hunters, put themselves at risk. They're doing everything we're told not to do, moving quietly, masking scent, locating a kill. Due to the popularity of Yellowstone, and the stupid or ignorant actions of visitors, wild animals have lost some of their fear and no longer act in a predictable manner. Yes, even in our state people are building in grizzly habitat. It's happening with other large predators as well. People move into the foothills in the front range of Colorado and complain about mountain lions, coyotes, bears, etc. All of this is an attempt to find a balance for land use between people and wildlife. It happened long ago in other states at a time with little protection for wildlife. Thankfully that isn't the case today. People need to understand that there is more than one side to the issue if they care to look. This will continue to be debated as pressure continues to grow on our resources.
 

yfarm

Observer
Is uniting bear populations to ensure genetic diversity an achievable goal given developement already present interrupting corridors. Generally, when a bear human interaction occurs the bear eventually loses as shown in the mauling. Are we actually setting the stage for more bear human interactions and resultant euthanasia by encouraging population growth with out removing corridor barriers.
 

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
There's no corridor issues around here. Bears follow the rivers that we build bridges over. Only near lakes and rivers will I spot them.
 

lucilius

Member
I live in a rural location in the northern rockies and I mean this respectfully: if you are commenting against the grizzly hunt and don't live in WY, MT, ID, (or aren't a wildlife biologist focused on grizzlies, etc.) your comments and recommendations are going to have as much local "ground truth" credibility as mine would if I were to posit theories on how to return the letter R to New England speech, clean up urban gun violence in Chicago or secure the Mexico/US border (go ahead, ask....simple solutions from my perspective but I bet local "ground truth" opinion would differ from mine, so I keep my mouth shut and trust the locals and experts will figure it out). If we want more grizzlies in the US, in order to create a truly healthy North American grizzly population, we need to start new populations in other states (+1 f350joe) and give these nascent populations support, oversight and protections against hunting for a few decades at least. I'm not buying the false idea being promulgated that there's no room, no habitat, etc. and everywhere else but Yellowstone is too overpopulated and overdeveloped to support new grizzly populations. I'd start in WA, OR and CA and other prior habitats and put a big effort into creating wildlife corridors to link these populations over time....developing and patiently achieving long-range 25-50 year goals would be novel. Instead we have a hackneyed, made-for-hollywood face-off: shrill environmentalists and pamphleteers spouting a confusing melange of accurate&biased statistics and knuckle-draggin', tobacco-spittin' good ole white boys hell bent on putting yogi, mama bear and their cubs in their reticles. It's actually a lot more nuanced if you live here and truly, most scientists and hunters get along pretty well and there are plenty them who go both ways. Similar to regions of Alaska/Canada, the grizzly population in Yellowstone ecosystem is dense enough to support a limited hunt. The money it brings in will help support more bear-related programs and awareness. It is funny to watch EVERY issue in the country become a highly politicized and polarizing event; anyone else sick of the fact that every American issue has only two sides, the outcome is essential, and no solution in sight? Ultimately, the only way we're going to save the grizzly is by creating new habitat in other states....or we can continue to have the "Yellowstone Grizzly Zoo" (and I'd recommend building a wall around it in that case, but that sounds like another polarizing media issue). Yellowstone has a growing grizzly population that is being hemmed in by even faster growing mountain west population-building-road growth: the bears are squirting out chaotically and running smack into human development. Hunt or not, without planning you're going to see more and more bear-human conflict and read about more illegal/self-defense/accidental killings of grizzlies result if we keep our heads in the sand relying on simplistic, short-sighted "NO GRIZZLY HUNT, NEVER!" vs "KILL EM ALL!" sloganeering and media melodrama.
 

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
Wouldnt you say the decision to allowed a limited hunt was a much studied and conservative decision? I dont think anyone has had both of the views you listed, we have had the never hunt group only take pictures on side, vs. the much studied and researched other side that has recorded the numbers and made a decision based on research, by experts.
 

Roadtoaster

New member
Well stated lucilius. This year in the Wyoming portion of the Yellowstone ecosystem there have been three grizzly encounters where blood was shed. One involved a 10 year old boy who was with his parents but ran when he saw the bear. The bear ran the boy down and had him on the ground chewing on his backside when the parents successfully drove the bear off using pepper spray. They were very fortunate! This happened on a popular trail near Old Faithful, the boy and the bear survived. The second attack involved two bears and is described in an earlier post. The latest involved guides packing out an elk when a sow charged the group even though they were on horseback. A guide shot and killed the charging bear. The incident is under investigation and the guide will potentially have plenty of legal trouble for his decision to shoot. Hopefully that won't be the case. Out of three encounters 3 dead bears, one dead human, one traumatized and injured 10 year old boy. Wyoming Game and Fish recently were called about four grizzly bears who decided to take up residence in a corn maze near Clark. They ended up putting an electric fence around the field to keep them out and the business is planning to open the maze. Not sure how many parents will want their kids playing in the maze. Three more grizzlys were eating pet food in a residential neighborhood. Wyoming had a reasonable plan for limited control that would have resulted in a decreased population of bears in problem areas. People living in or visiting grizzly habitat must be prepared, assume they will encounter a bear, know how to respond, and avoid creating situations that attract bears. With the decision of the federal judge reversing the protected status of grizzly bears in the lower 48, the population will continue to increase and along with it encounters with humans resulting in deaths of humans and bears. I wonder if the judge can live with that?
 
Top