Bear Baiting Lawsuit

[bluetick78]

I just finished reading an article in the Boise Statesman that gave info on a lawsuit. The suit is being brought by WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watershed Project to challenge the legality of bear baiting in Idaho and Wyoming in relationship to the Endangered Species Act, more specifically.....Grizzly bears. They allege a lot of things in the letter of intent to sue, mainly that baiting black bears is unethical and is adversely affecting "endangered" Grizzlies. As an avid bear hunter, and occasional bear baiter, I'd really hate to see baiting banned. I prefer spot and stalk, however baiting is an effective management tool that these 2 states rely on to knock back growing bear populations. Interactions with grizzlies at bait sites have been minimal thus far, and certain portions of Idaho are not allowed to be baited due to high grizzly populations. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Let's keep it civil please, I truly understand that lots of us have different views on baiting ethics and I will stay neutral for the purpose of the discussion.

 

[tdhanses]

Really just the same old same old, antis always looking to whittle away at hunting. Heck they got Grizzly hunting banned in BC based on emotion and the ESA reinstated in the lower 48 on Grizzly. If we don’t stand up to it they’ll succeed and keep on plowing forward.

 

[jspradley]

It's not about saving Grizzlies it's about ending hunting for bears all together because of feelings.

 

[black dawg]

On the wildearth gaurdians webpage, they say "over the last 23 years we have seen a large number of grizzly bears killed at black bear baiting stations in Idaho and Wyoming, including the first grizzly to make it to Idaho bitterroot region since 1949".

Have there really been that many griz bears killed at bait stations? I have only heard of the one in Idaho bitterroot range.


answering my own question, looks like 8 grizzly bears since 1995.

 

[jmden]

It is an effort to incrementally take away hunting. Nothing less. Just like the 2nd Ammendment. Probably many of the same folks. Judge shopping and clueless voters...we are not that far from not having hunting. Time to stand up and get in the fight.

 

[black dawg]

The griz that was killed by hunters in the Idaho bitteroots was killed over bait.....heard the story directly from the outfitter. On wildearths webpage they list 8 griz total that were killed over bait since 95, never heard anything about them though??

 

[kickemall]

"Don't forget the long battle in California recently. First they got baiting banned, next it was hounds, then while every sportsman in Cali was napping, they took away bear hunting altogether. They had already banned mt lion hunting a few years prior."


California still has a bear season, just can't run them with hounds or use bait.

 

[Trial153]

Unfortunately in many ( not all) localities if you take away hounds and baiting you effectively took away bear hunting. The truth of the matter is at point it’s nothing but an incidental encounter.

 

[orelkaddict]

If they take away baiting and hounds their numbers will sky rocket like they have here in Oregon!!! Baiting rights is only a stepping stone in a bigger idea for these people, stand for your rights now or you won't have any in the future to worry about.

 

[black dawg]

Any new news on this?

We have been running a bait site for the last 5 years, and had a blast doing it. Lots of hard work, but sets up a controlled shot and plenty of time to identify bears.

The number of bears that are taken each year in the area we hunt, I cant imaging what the bear population would be like in just a few years without these bait sites.

 

[Murdy]

Unfortunately in many ( not all) localities if you take away hounds and baiting you effectively took away bear hunting. The truth of the matter is at point it’s nothing but an incidental encounter.

Exactly. Not a lot of spot and stalk going on in the swamps of northern Wisconsin.

 

[Mt Al]

Can't bait, use scents or hounds in Montana (top left corner of page 4 in the regs) and it's been that way for years and I'm sure that will give the law suit ammo, unfortunately. Plenty of people harvest bears without hounds, scent, bait, etc, around here but its generally because you can hunt them on open hillsides and glass for miles.

Wild Earth Guardians (I just cried a little, such an emotionally charged name) has to continue to bring law suits against anything they can because that's their business model. No law suits, no Guarding The Wild Earth, no donors from the East Coast. No emotionally charged pictures of endangered species, no money, no cush jobs in the West. It's not going to end, ever. Those people make a great living, live in nice places and get to hang out outside and get paid for it. Buckle up for the rest of our lives, ain't going to stop.

 

[idaho-shooter]

I think its ironic that Idaho Fish and Game actually uses road kill to bait the grizzly's in the Panhandle so they can collect DNA, collar them, etc.

IDFG still collects a tooth from each harvested bear to maintain a data base of harvest in an effort to defend the bear hunting practices and regulations in these type of suits. IDFG is prepared to defend these suits.

 

[Bubblehide]

The bunny huggers sued Idaho over hound hunting in 1996. IDF&G won that suit with lots of help from the cattle industry and very little help from hunters, who stood on the sidelines and bitched for the most part. ...

Everytime we purchase a hunting license and/or tag, we are supporting the defense of these suits, amongst many other supports for wildlife, and we hunters have been providing these supports for generations. So to make a blanket statement tat we have been standing on the sidelines is very inappropriate to say the least. And, I did not even mention the many other groups that hunters provide supports to, monetary, labor, supplies, equipment, and the specific taxes on hunting and fishing equipment we pay...

Traditionally, hunters have never sought publicity for there support of conservation. As such, I can see how to those outside of hunting could be ignorant of the facts of the supports that we as hunters have provided for generations, the species that our support have brought back from the brink of extinction... So once again, to say we stood on the sidelines, is totally inappropriate and unsubstantiated.

 

[Bubblehide]

"Offended", I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

[black dawg]

the notice of intent to sue can be found on westernwatersheds.org, under resources, then legal efforts. In the first paragraph of the baiting article the word NOTICE is highlighted, clicking on it will bring up the notice of intent to sue.

 

[Bubblehide]

... These types of unsubstantiated injunctions are akin to "guilty until proven innocent ".

That is because our F&W laws are Prima Facie laws, unlike our criminal laws. The primary reason for the difference is that in criminal cases we generally have a complainant, i.e., a voice against the crime, where as in the case of F&W animals have no voice, i.e., they can not speak for themselves. This is why a warrant is needed for criminal violations and not for our F&W laws. For example, if you are hunting or fishing, or appear to be, have been, or about to, a warden does not need a warrant to search you, your vehicle...

Unfortunately, the prima facie laws extend to silly suits like this one.

 

[Bubblehide]

Not needing a warrant to search would be subject to the state you live in. Just because it's F&W does not automatically grant a state the right to violate your 4th ammendment protections, you would have to live in a state with a fairly liberal legal precedent. "Plain sight" rules apply nearly everywhere, but in my home state a law enforcement officer had better have a warrant or pretty substantial probable cause to go further than that. Now.....back to the original intent of this post.

I think you should take some time and educate yourself on what I stated above, as you are confusing criminal law with Prima Facie laws. These prima facie laws l are the same from state to state. Furthermore, national wildlife laws apply to every state and are prima facie laws, as such wardens are cross certified as state and federal law enforcement officers. I know, you are thinking of innocent until proven guilty... but just because a warden does NOT need a warrant if you appear to be/have been/about to engage in hunting or fishing, that does not assume guilt, and as far as the 4th, the courts decided this a long long time ago. Yes the cops need a warrant, a warden does not, unless of course you do not exhibit any indication of having been/about to/are hunting. This fact has everything to with the original post and the fact that the case will get a good look over, at the least. This fact is very important in understanding how the system actually operates, and how to go about defending against these frivolous suits. And, moreso, why so many of these type of suits happen and move forward in the courts. If you ignore these facts, you are simply missing the boat, and these wack-jobs are bound to win.

I am not trying to argue with you hear. I am simply trying to provide some facts and food for thought. These they of suits are not going to slow down in the future, unless we as hunters move to adjust our legal system in defense of these suits and the monetary suck they cause to actual conservation, instead of their feel good "conservation". Now back to a real and factual discussion.

 

[Bubblehide]

bluetick, if you really think what I have to say is facetious, you may as well delete this post, as there is no hope for you in actually understanding the issues we face in such cases. Your dismissal of the actual facts leaves the situation literally hopeless. As such, I question your actual understanding of my point. But from your post above, it's a moot point. The saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink" comes to mind.

 

[ramont]

Any new news on this?

We have been running a bait site for the last 5 years, and had a blast doing it. Lots of hard work, but sets up a controlled shot and plenty of time to identify bears.

The number of bears that are taken each year in the area we hunt, I cant imaging what the bear population would be like in just a few years without these bait sites.

So where are you baiting? Montana or another state?