Baiting Lawsuit Continues

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
507
86
Winchester,

Glad to know you're the only person who's ever spent time around grizzlies or had any experience with them.

If I have any questions about grizzly behavior, grizzly hunting, or really anything...I'll make sure I get in touch with you first to make sure you haven't "been there and seen it".

Just to clarify, in case you were wondering...grizzlies are getting shot at now in Wyoming (legally). Even though I didn't double check with you, to make sure you havent "been there and seen it" I know it to be a fact.
 

CrimsonArrow

Very Active Member
Feb 21, 2011
717
88
Minnesota
Totally agree its wise to pack a firearm and/or spray.

Totally disagree with the rest...ever heard people say that grizzly bears hear a gunshot and its about like ringing the dinner bell?

How would a bear know if they hear a shot and should run away or run toward the gunshot?

Bottom line, hunting them isn't going to change their behavior in Wyoming. There wont be enough tags issued to make a dent...IF we get a season.

I will say, that considering the density of grizzly bears in the NW corner of Wyoming, I'm shocked there isn't more maulings and problems than there are. Same goes for AK and Canada.
So reducing their population density has no effect on their behavior? I’m not a bear biologist, but I would have to think they act more aggressively when competition for food is greater.
 

taskswap

Active Member
Jul 9, 2018
371
217
Colorado
Maybe so, but the question is how MUCH more.

We spend a lot of time debating these issues based on "the last time my cousin Eddie saw a bear..." I think it's fun and maybe we're just bored, but it's more useful to look at overall patterns backed up by actual studies of bear behavior. Those that I've seen suggest that overall, bears see humans as easy sources of food. You can debate all the reasons why that is (hunters standing over elk carcasses, trash cans, picnic tables, or whatever) but any way you slice it, they're basically enormous raccoons. Even average sized bears need to eat 20,000+ calories a day. One fun number I remember was "50 cheeseburgers every day." It's a good mental picture.

It doesn't really matter whether it's 17% of one thing or 19%. The point is, bears getting habituated to humans is bad - bad for the bears, and bad for the humans. If people are still leaving unsecured trash cans around or all the other bad things that happen, taking out a few more by hunting isn't going to stop bears from appreciating some leftover cheeseburger wrappers out of the back seat of your car. It's not because cutting out a few bears will give the rest more berries. It's because cheeseburgers taste good, and bears like them, and eating them is a heck of a lot easier than picking 500 berries off a bush!
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
507
86
Hunting can increase population density, in particular if you kill adult males. Which you're correct, will increase competition among bears for available habitat and food. Increase in population also causes more dispersal into marginal habitat and habitat where bears are in more contact with people. Not sure that makes them more "aggressive"...but perhaps.

A majority of the proposed harvest in Wyoming in the wilderness areas was going to target male grizzly bears, which very likely would result in higher over-all populations.

Mountains of research out there have proven it...the only way to control population is to hammer the females, and that just isn't going to happen under the state management proposal. Shooting the dominate, adult boars will increase the population and overall density over time...no 2 ways about it.

To reduce the population and density only a couple ways to do it...either kill a significant portion of the population off or focus on female harvest (including whacking cubs too) or do both. Killing a small number of boars is strictly providing hunting opportunity and has next to zero at all to do with controlling over-all population or density.

Like I've said, its a feel good approach that we're "doing something" to put the fear in bears and killing a few...that's all it is.
 
Last edited:

Hilltop

Veteran member
Feb 25, 2014
3,144
630
Eastern Nebraska
Here is a thought that dates back to some of my biology classes 20+ years ago. One professor I had proposed that hunting, over the course of many years, would change a populations typical response and behavior to people. His reasoning was that animals that naturally showed less fear for people became easier targets, thus hunting slowly removed that trait in the animals. Over the course of time, animals that were more fearful of hunters had a better survival rate. He claimed that in several generations, animals like grizzly bears would exhibit more fear towards humans resulting in fewer negative encounters. It made sense to me but I have no clue if he was right. I do believe for this to work there would have to be more than just a few tags though.
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
507
86
Here is a thought that dates back to some of my biology classes 20+ years ago. One professor I had proposed that hunting, over the course of many years, would change a populations typical response and behavior to people. His reasoning was that animals that naturally showed less fear for people became easier targets, thus hunting slowly removed that trait in the animals. Over the course of time, animals that were more fearful of hunters had a better survival rate. He claimed that in several generations, animals like grizzly bears would exhibit more fear towards humans resulting in fewer negative encounters. It made sense to me but I have no clue if he was right. I do believe for this to work there would have to be more than just a few tags though.
That would depend on a lot of things.

The theory assumes that the hunters would shoot the easiest accessible and first animal they found. It would have to assume that the animals the hunter kills, also spends a majority of its time near people so they're less fearful of people. What happens when the animal that shows the least amount of fear is a female that has cubs most of her life and isn't even able to be legally killed? What about a smaller than average male bear that is a poor trophy, but spends its time near people and doesn't fear humans at all?

There are grizzly bears that spend a lot of their time near people, do incredible amounts of damage, and it takes years, sometimes a decade plus, for those bears to be caught or killed (Falls Creek Grizzly 346 in Montana for example).

Its a nice theory that killing a few bears a year will make them more wary of people...but there's too many variables in the personalities of the bears and also the bears hunters choose to kill for the theory to hold water.

Who knows, it could happen, but it would take killing a pretty significant portion of the lower 48 grizzly bears over a long time period for that to happen. Don't forget, bears live a long time in the wild, "several generations" could be a 100-200 year time frame. That's a long time to prove or disprove a theory. We wont see any significant change downward in grizzly populations or enough grizzlies killed in the lower 48 to ever know...

IMO, there are at least as many valid reasons to NOT have a lower 48 grizzly season, than to have one. I support both State Management and a season 100%, just not via the excuse of shooting them to put the fear back into them or to control the populations. The seasons as proposed, will do neither.
 

CrimsonArrow

Very Active Member
Feb 21, 2011
717
88
Minnesota
That would depend on a lot of things.

The theory assumes that the hunters would shoot the easiest accessible and first animal they found. It would have to assume that the animals the hunter kills, also spends a majority of its time near people so they're less fearful of people. What happens when the animal that shows the least amount of fear is a female that has cubs most of her life and isn't even able to be legally killed? What about a smaller than average male bear that is a poor trophy, but spends its time near people and doesn't fear humans at all?

There are grizzly bears that spend a lot of their time near people, do incredible amounts of damage, and it takes years, sometimes a decade plus, for those bears to be caught or killed (Falls Creek Grizzly 346 in Montana for example).

Its a nice theory that killing a few bears a year will make them more wary of people...but there's too many variables in the personalities of the bears and also the bears hunters choose to kill for the theory to hold water.

Who knows, it could happen, but it would take killing a pretty significant portion of the lower 48 grizzly bears over a long time period for that to happen. Don't forget, bears live a long time in the wild, "several generations" could be a 100-200 year time frame. That's a long time to prove or disprove a theory. We wont see any significant change downward in grizzly populations or enough grizzlies killed in the lower 48 to ever know...

IMO, there are at least as many valid reasons to NOT have a lower 48 grizzly season, than to have one. I support both State Management and a season 100%, just not via the excuse of shooting them to put the fear back into them or to control the populations. The seasons as proposed, will do neither.
Only issue tags in areas outlying the grizzlies core habitat. That would target more problem bears, and if killing boars results in a population increase, then issue more tags. Who cares what your justification is for a grizzly season, as long as it creates a hunting opportunity and eliminates some coop raiders.
 

Winchester

Veteran member
Mar 27, 2014
1,618
629
Woodland Park, Colorado
Here is a thought that dates back to some of my biology classes 20+ years ago. One professor I had proposed that hunting, over the course of many years, would change a populations typical response and behavior to people. His reasoning was that animals that naturally showed less fear for people became easier targets, thus hunting slowly removed that trait in the animals. Over the course of time, animals that were more fearful of hunters had a better survival rate. He claimed that in several generations, animals like grizzly bears would exhibit more fear towards humans resulting in fewer negative encounters. It made sense to me but I have no clue if he was right. I do believe for this to work there would have to be more than just a few tags though.
Your professor's theory makes sense to me too Hilltop.
I also agree with you that it would take more than just a few tags to make it work.
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
507
86
Only issue tags in areas outlying the grizzlies core habitat. That would target more problem bears, and if killing boars results in a population increase, then issue more tags. Who cares what your justification is for a grizzly season, as long as it creates a hunting opportunity and eliminates some coop raiders.
Uhhh because in the "outlying areas" populations are so low that no bears will be killed? For there to be enough interest in a season, a hunter has to have a reasonable chance of actually finding a bear to kill. Hunting problem bears is also not as easy as it sounds. Grizzly bears spend a lot of time near people undetected, look at some of the collar data. Its flat amazing how much time the grizzlies in the "outlying areas" spend very close to people, towns, livestock...and how little they are seen, and also how little trouble they cause.

I can tell you exactly who cares about the reasons for a grizzly season, the courts, the WYGF/IDFG/MTFWP, the USFWS, the citizens of those states, etc. etc. etc.

You don't have to convince me, I'm fine with the way the GF structured the season and I applied for a tag when I was allowed to a couple years ago.

But, all this doesn't currently matter until the lawsuits are solved...we're putting the cart squarely in front of the horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taskswap

ScottR

Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2014
6,383
1,068
www.eastmans.com
With the grizzly bear issues you can parallel a lot of the way it has played out with our wolf situation. The biggest difference is the reproduction rate of the bears which is naturally slower than that of wolves. We are in the drawn out phase now of legal battles that unfortunately will take many years to resolve but we have to be more patient than the people who would will throw suit after suit at any management plan. It took years with the wolves and their higher reproductive capacity likely spurred them to a quicker resolve. This one is very similar IMO, jut a longer process.
 

NathLean

New Member
Sep 21, 2020
2
0
Arizona Phoenix
Guys, does anyone know if the lawsuit has been already settled? As i cannot find any proper information about this lawsuit actually. Maybe i should be looking better, however i didn't find anything. Surely, if the recovered bear wasn't from an endangered species, them there wouldn't be such a problem with it. There would not be all this fuss for an ordinary bear. That is a normal thing. I just hate the lawsuits when the judges are trying to settle it as fast as possible, but just try to play with everyones time. That is exactly what happened to me during my defamation lawsuit. I was innocent, and my lawyer who works for https://www.minclaw.com/florida-defamation-law-state-guide/, told me there was no way we could lose the suit. However, it took an eternity until we got the settlement.
 
Last edited:

Bonecollector

Veteran member
Mar 9, 2014
4,952
1,586
Ohio
Uhhh because in the "outlying areas" populations are so low that no bears will be killed? For there to be enough interest in a season, a hunter has to have a reasonable chance of actually finding a bear to kill. Hunting problem bears is also not as easy as it sounds. Grizzly bears spend a lot of time near people undetected, look at some of the collar data. Its flat amazing how much time the grizzlies in the "outlying areas" spend very close to people, towns, livestock...and how little they are seen, and also how little trouble they cause.

I can tell you exactly who cares about the reasons for a grizzly season, the courts, the WYGF/IDFG/MTFWP, the USFWS, the citizens of those states, etc. etc. etc.

You don't have to convince me, I'm fine with the way the GF structured the season and I applied for a tag when I was allowed to a couple years ago.

But, all this doesn't currently matter until the lawsuits are solved...we're putting the cart squarely in front of the horse.
Some good feedback Buzz.
However, let me add a point you've missed between the discussion of both you and Crimson Arrow.
Humans are the apex hunter/predator and dominate upon the top of the food chain. If I were issued a 'problem bear tag' I, as many other hunters (not all) would change tactics to hunt grizzlies where they are. They are only undetected by the uniformed.
I, like you, would punch my tag....
 

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
2,463
994
Caveat - We are only dominant with a weapon in our hand. lol

Bottom line is that the G&F of every lower 48 state with grizzly's will kill the problem bears. We will likely never see a season for grizzly in the lower 48.

UNTIL the states are short on money, then some strings will be pulled behind the govt curtain and they will issue "Prize or raffle tags" to residents. (which is fine by me as the only grizzly I may have to kill in my lifetime will be in self defense and one that nobody hears about). Then the state agencies will piss away that money and figure out some other kind of cash cow.

If population is the issue then killing the boars is NOT the answer. Killing sows and cubs is the answer. (See current Ontario black bear issue. I believe I have talked about that before on here.)