Grizz hunting is over

[CorbLand]

The real problem is how recovery is considered. Technically speaking, grizzlies are not recovered because they don't occupy their native range. You know, the entire western half of the United States. Which we all know they will never occupy their native range. This mentality needs to change and they laws need to be written for recovery to be in a geographical area.

It will take some time, just like wolfs did but it will happen.

 

[NCSU_Lewis]

The real problem is how recovery is considered. Technically speaking, grizzlies are not recovered because they don't occupy their native range. You know, the entire western half of the United States. Which we all know they will never occupy their native range. This mentality needs to change and they laws need to be written for recovery to be in a geographical area.

It will take some time, just like wolfs did but it will happen.

Yep. If we are using this logic for grizz, shouldn't we end all elk hunting because we don't have a huntable size stable population up in our hills of North Carolina? This will be hard as hell to change for stuff like bears. Having large, albeit segmented populations, should still represent recovery, despite a large portion of uninhabited native range.

 

[jspradley]

Yep. If we are using this logic for grizz, shouldn't we end all elk hunting because we don't have a huntable size stable population up in our hills of North Carolina?

SHHHH don't say that too loud.

 

[Violent Hippie]

A few highlights from https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/bearesa.htm This is the same ol B.S. with activist judges .

2003: Recovery goals are met for the sixth year in a row
2007: The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem distinct population segment of grizzly bear population is removed from the threatened species list. Conservation Strategy is implemented. Several groups file lawsuits challenging the decision.
2009: A federal district judge overturned the delisting ruling, placing grizzly bears back on the threatened species list claiming: (1) the Conservation Strategy was unenforceable, and (2) that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service did not adequately consider the impacts of the potential loss of whitebark pine nuts, a grizzly bear food source.
2013: Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, and Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team recommend that grizzly bears be removed from the threatened species list because alternative foods are available and the reduction of whitebark pine is not having a significant impact on bears at this time.

 

[adamm88]

Stupid rulings, either they get killed by hunters or killed when they are a nusicense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheGrayRider]

Are the persons that bought the grizzly hunting licenses and tags receiving a refund? Did the Judge address that issue in his order? Should the hunters get a credit for 2019 licenses because they bought a hunting license that was later voided and useless? Possible refundable tax credit on their 2018 federal tax return for the cost of the license?

 

[5MilesBack]

If that's your thinking you should be doing Montana unlimited sheep hunts every year! Valid tag, no communication, hunt until you fill the tag. Can't beat it.

That's how I do my elk hunts, but it's unlikely that a judge is going to cancel my season during or right before it starts.

 

[CorbLand]

Are the persons that bought the grizzly hunting licenses and tags receiving a refund?
Did the Judge address that issue in his order? Should the hunters get a credit for 2019 licenses because they bought a hunting license that was later voided and useless? Possible refundable tax credit on their 2018 federal tax return for the cost of the license?

In Idaho, no you arent getting a refund. You had to sign a paper saying that if the hunt was canceled for any reason you would not be getting a refund. The risk was known up front. Honestly, no they shouldn't get a credit, the risk was known up front. Why would they get a refund on federal taxes when wildlife is managed by the states?

 

[LostArra]

Wyoming congresswoman responds:

Cheney introduces legislation to again remove grizzly from federal protection - Buckrail - Jackson Hole, news

 

[widnert]

How about all of the bear attack victims in the past several years get together and file a civil suit against the knuckleheads who started this lawsuit, and the judge, for the irreparable harm to their lives and livelihoods? Against all scientific evidence and conclusions, these folks are blocking the balanced management of a species and this lack of management caused these folks harm. Hmmmm. Not sure how it would fly but, I makes some sense in my pea brain. Start hitting some folks in the pocketbook and they might think twice before filing lawsuits to subvert good management plans.

 

[Murdy]

Yep. If we are using this logic for grizz, shouldn't we end all elk hunting because we don't have a huntable size stable population up in our hills of North Carolina? This will be hard as hell to change for stuff like bears. Having large, albeit segmented populations, should still represent recovery, despite a large portion of uninhabited native range.

I believe the difference is that the criteria is written into the Endangered Species Act--grizz were declare endangered so the Act applies; elk were not, so there's no question about recovery. The proper solution is to amend the Endangered Species Act and change the criteria.

 

[TheGrayRider]

In Idaho, no you arent getting a refund. You had to sign a paper saying that if the hunt was canceled for any reason you would not be getting a refund. The risk was known up front. Honestly, no they shouldn't get a credit, the risk was known up front. Why would they get a refund on federal taxes when wildlife is managed by the states?

Injuction was from federal order by a federal court and judge somewhere like Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, not a state injunctive order by a state court. Feds could pay for refund/credit to nonhunting licensees - let the states keep the money they already collected for "wildlife management."

 

[CorbLand]

How about all of the bear attack victims in the past several years get together and file a civil suit against the knuckleheads who started this lawsuit, and the judge, for the irreparable harm to their lives and livelihoods? Against all scientific evidence and conclusions, these folks are blocking the balanced management of a species and this lack of management caused these folks harm. Hmmmm. Not sure how it would fly but, I makes some sense in my pea brain. Start hitting some folks in the pocketbook and they might think twice before filing lawsuits to subvert good management plans.

This would then open up the can of worms of who would be responsible for wildlife related attacks? The State? The Feds? The people? You think management is bad now, wait until the State can get sued for a wildlife attack. Also, who deems what is sound management? If this was able to happen the harm would do way more than any good that could come of it.

I hate to break it to most of you but the judge that put the stop to this hunt is using science to back his decision. Science isn't perfect and generally is swayed to who is paying for the research. For every article you can find stating their are enough grizzly bears to sustain a hunt, you can find one that says theres not.

I get that this is a dumb ruling and that their needs to be changes but come on guys use your freaking heads before coming up with knee jerk reactions to everything that goes "against" hunting.

 

[CorbLand]

In Idaho, no you arent getting a refund. You had to sign a paper saying that if the hunt was canceled for any reason you would not be getting a refund. The risk was known up front. Honestly, no they shouldn't get a credit, the risk was known up front. Why would they get a refund on federal taxes when wildlife is managed by the states?

Injuction was from federal order by a federal court and judge somewhere like Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, not a state injunctive order by a state court. Feds could pay for refund/credit to nonhunting licensees - let the states keep the money they already collected for "wildlife management."

Oh dear lord could you imagine the can of worms this would open?

 

[widnert]

This would then open up the can of worms of who would be responsible for wildlife related attacks? The State? The Feds? The people? You think management is bad now, wait until the State can get sued for a wildlife attack. Also, who deems what is sound management? If this was able to happen the harm would do way more than any good that could come of it.

I hate to break it to most of you but the judge that put the stop to this hunt is using science to back his decision. Science isn't perfect and generally is swayed to who is paying for the research. For every article you can find stating their are enough grizzly bears to sustain a hunt, you can find one that says theres not.

I get that this is a dumb ruling and that their needs to be changes but come on guys use your freaking heads before coming up with knee jerk reactions to everything that goes "against" hunting.

Well, I didn't say anything about suing any government agency. I was pointing at the anti's that were trying to get the bears re-listed as an endangered species. They are blocking the common sense management of the species, as dictated by the USF&W. As you can see from the links in previous posts, previous attempts to de-list were blocked in courts in order to study the availability of food sources for the bears, etc. That freshly-placed hurdle was overcome, the numbers of the bears increased even more. Thus, the latest de-listing. USF&W state the bear population exceeds the carrying capacity of the range they are currently in. That would be a detriment to other species in the same ecosystem. That's the science and common sense management used for the de-listing - among other things listed in the report from the USF&W.

Christensen (the Judge) wrote in his ruling that the case was "not about the ethics of hunting." Rather, he said, it was about whether federal officials adequately considered threats to the species' long-term recovery when they lifted protections for more than 700 bears (yeah right - try over 1000) living around Yellowstone National Park.

There is NO science applied to this ruling. Just a "I feel that these critters might be impacted by climate change - so let's "study" this some more." Talk about a pile of horse-hockey. THAT was his ruling.

The judge also said, "He noted that an estimated 50,000 bears once roamed the contiguous U.S. and said it would be "simplistic at best and disingenuous at worst" not to consider the status of grizzlies outside the Yellowstone region, one of the few areas where they have bounced back." The hunts weren't planned for anywhere else EXCEPT the Yellowstone area. Why? Because there are tooo many bears in and around the park! The de-listing was also "just" for those areas. Where the population has recovered to the point of meeting the requirements (and more) within the ESA.

And, one of the attorneys from EarthJustice (fill in your other eco-whack-job anti-hunter group here), "Tim Preso, an attorney with EarthJustice who represented many of the plaintiffs, said Christensen's ruling made clear that the government had moved too hastily to remove protections because bears are absent from much of their historical range."

HISTORICAL range?????? They will NEVER be restored to their historical range because it just doesn't exist! Or better yet, let's find out where this Tim Preso lives, capture three or four big boars and drop them off in his backyard. Why not! That's probably part of their historical range......

Like I said, it would be interesting if parties impacted by bear attacks would turn around and go after the anti-hunting groups behind this lawsuit - and the judge - and claim damages from those attacks because these knuckleheads think they know more than the USF&W service when it comes to de-listing these animals.

This is not rocket-surgery. This was plain and simply judge-shopping. And, the practice needs to stop. Period.

 

[CorbLand]

Well, I didn't say anything about suing any government agency. I was pointing at the anti's that were trying to get the bears re-listed as an endangered species. They are blocking the common sense management of the species, as dictated by the USF&W. As you can see from the links in previous posts, previous attempts to de-list were blocked in courts in order to study the availability of food sources for the bears, etc. That freshly-placed hurdle was overcome, the numbers of the bears increased even more. Thus, the latest de-listing. USF&W state the bear population exceeds the carrying capacity of the range they are currently in. That would be a detriment to other species in the same ecosystem. That's the science and common sense management used for the de-listing - among other things listed in the report from the USF&W.

Christensen (the Judge) wrote in his ruling that the case was "not about the ethics of hunting." Rather, he said, it was about whether federal officials adequately considered threats to the species' long-term recovery when they lifted protections for more than 700 bears (yeah right - try over 1000) living around Yellowstone National Park.

There is NO science applied to this ruling. Just a "I feel that these critters might be impacted by climate change - so let's "study" this some more." Talk about a pile of horse-hockey. THAT was his ruling.

The judge also said, "He noted that an estimated 50,000 bears once roamed the contiguous U.S. and said it would be "simplistic at best and disingenuous at worst" not to consider the status of grizzlies outside the Yellowstone region, one of the few areas where they have bounced back." The hunts weren't planned for anywhere else EXCEPT the Yellowstone area. Why? Because there are tooo many bears in and around the park! The de-listing was also "just" for those areas. Where the population has recovered to the point of meeting the requirements (and more) within the ESA.

And, one of the attorneys from EarthJustice (fill in your other eco-whack-job anti-hunter group here), "Tim Preso, an attorney with EarthJustice who represented many of the plaintiffs, said Christensen's ruling made clear that the government had moved too hastily to remove protections because bears are absent from much of their historical range."

HISTORICAL range?????? They will NEVER be restored to their historical range because it just doesn't exist! Or better yet, let's find out where this Tim Preso lives, capture three or four big boars and drop them off in his backyard. Why not! That's probably part of their historical range......

Like I said, it would be interesting if parties impacted by bear attacks would turn around and go after the anti-hunting groups behind this lawsuit - and the judge - and claim damages from those attacks because these knuckleheads think they know more than the USF&W service when it comes to de-listing these animals.

This is not rocket-surgery. This was plain and simply judge-shopping. And, the practice needs to stop. Period.

First, looking into the validity of a food source is science. Thus, this decision is based on science. Its just that the science doesn't agree with what we believe the science to be. Kind of like I said earlier, its not perfect and generally is swayed towards who is paying for the research.

Second, the idea of them being restored to their historic range has been discussed earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, when Grizzly's were put on the endangered species list it wasn't written as being restored to a certain geographic area, it was written as recovered. This is something that needs to change and it has been changed in the recent years.

Third, how could the groups that are suing be held responsible for the attacks of animals? What grounds would anyone have to stand on there? If you shot a bear, don't kill it but its pissed off, runs to the next canyon and attacks a hiker, should you be held responsible? The precedence that a law that allowed you to sue people because they sue for something you don't agree with would be an utter and complete shit show.


Please for the love of all that is holy, think things through and look at things from more than a one sided, bias way.

I urge you to do some research on what happened when wolfs were relisted and the struggles that happened there. You will see the similarities and will see what the over all solution. This will be solved by convincing congress to exempt the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem area from ESA protection for Grizzlys.

 

[widnert]

First, looking into the validity of a food source is science. Thus, this decision is based on science. Its just that the science doesn't agree with what we believe the science to be. Kind of like I said earlier, its not perfect and generally is swayed towards who is paying for the research.

Second, the idea of them being restored to their historic range has been discussed earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, when Grizzly's were put on the endangered species list it wasn't written as being restored to a certain geographic area, it was written as recovered. This is something that needs to change and it has been changed in the recent years.

Third, how could the groups that are suing be held responsible for the attacks of animals? What grounds would anyone have to stand on there? If you shot a bear, don't kill it but its pissed off, runs to the next canyon and attacks a hiker, should you be held responsible? The precedence that a law that allowed you to sue people because they sue for something you don't agree with would be an utter and complete shit show.


Please for the love of all that is holy, think things through and look at things from more than a one sided, bias way.

I urge you to do some research on what happened when wolfs were relisted and the struggles that happened there. You will see the similarities and will see what the over all solution. This will be solved by convincing congress to exempt the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem area from ESA protection for Grizzlys.

Actually, I have thought things through on this specific topic and many others. Thoroughly. You, for one, are providing subjective opinions and replying in a condescending manner implying you know more than someone else. Try again. I replied with facts from the articles, my own research and voiced an "opinion" formed on my own. You have your opinion, I have mine. You trying to be holier-than-thou doesn't make your opinion any more right than mine. So, try again or .... My opinion was to merely state how it would be interesting for those harmed parties to file a suit against the anti's that are blocking the de-listing - and the judge. In my "opinion" it would be interesting to watch.

 

[Gobbler36]

How about all of the bear attack victims in the past several years get together and file a civil suit against the knuckleheads who started this lawsuit, and the judge, for the irreparable harm to their lives and livelihoods? Against all scientific evidence and conclusions, these folks are blocking the balanced management of a species and this lack of management caused these folks harm. Hmmmm. Not sure how it would fly but, I makes some sense in my pea brain. Start hitting some folks in the pocketbook and they might think twice before filing lawsuits to subvert good management plans.

May be the best idea I’ve read on this site!!

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

One day the great bears will be able to be hunted. Just a matter of time. Let’s be happy people it’s hunting season. These months are what we live for.

 

[Azone]

This Judge is an obvious classical emotional LIBTARD appointed bye Obama . Using the ESA against itself is unfortunately a greasy move used bye these Greenie types regardless what any field biologists or folks with true field knowledge share. Doesnt matter if the animal meets or surpasses the original goal . It appears this Judge and those of his ilk have no intention of removing the Grizzly from ESA status no matter what the numbers are. Grotesque.

Exactly!!!