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.