Grizzly Bears Are Getting Out Of Hand

Winchester

Veteran member
Mar 27, 2014
1,760
822
Woodland Park, Colorado
Interesting article!

At the end Dan says the environmentalists and “bear lover”s want "at least 50,000 bears (citing Lewis and Clark’s estimated numbers) but it seems like Lewis and Clark's estimates most likely wouldn't be very accurate ... and why do they believe that's the "right number" anyway?

Bear lovers said "they hold that the real problem is there are too many people and not enough bears."
And one individual also indicated "she values the lives of bears over the lives of her fellow Americans."

Dan's big question at the end is "... how many more people are going to have to die from grizzly attacks and how many more bears have to be euthanized before sound, scientific management practices are put in place?"

If it's true the bear lovers want more and more bears regardless of the threat to human lives, that means they'll never want to put management practices in place, no matter how many deaths occur. Pretty scary.

I guess we'll have to do our best to vote for judges who will eventually be willing to allow the states to manage their bears, regardless of pushback from environmentalists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bonecollector

taskswap

Active Member
Jul 9, 2018
437
288
Colorado
I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion in this crowd, but I could barely read half that article. It was totally sensationalist and full of logical fallacies. If anything, I would think it does more harm than good. Those opposed to allowing increases in grizzly populations already believe everything there. And those who support it could so easily attack the entire article that I don't see what it achieves.
 

280ackimp

Active Member
Jul 4, 2017
154
14
New Hampshire
This is a highly controversial issue, last year a member ...popped up and told all of us who wanted an open season/managed hunt that we didnt know our ass from our elbow.
I contend that the people (activists) who dont want an open season or management by hunting are largely subscribing to the "original range" in the documents that the judge ruled on in 2018. Original Range needs to be defined first in order to know what the possible steps are for litigation.
At face value no management will take place until someone defines "original range"? That could be mean the bears need a presence and in some population in most lower 48 ? While I would love to see NY, NJ and Mass along with Cali deal with Grizz ...it applies way too much pressure in the Rockies and the people and livestock business. On the other side of this I wounder if a management/ hunt if held consistently would have an impact on the human interactions ...I have to think creating fear in an animal (most animals ) of humans would be a good thing, I wonder if brother bear will ever fear man?

The people I have spoken with in the western states seem to agree that local management of the bears is needed, states should have the say on state lands and animals that occupy them. Why on earth should a Berkeley or Harvard activist tell a family in MT, WY or ID how much livestock they should be willing to sacrifice for the cause? More importantly a grandmother from the Jackson area says she cant let her grand kids play in the yard because of the consistent presence of Grizz......
 

Hilltop

Veteran member
Feb 25, 2014
3,282
922
Eastern Nebraska
To be honest I have no desire to hunt them and I am questioning how much of an impact a hunting season would have on bear attacks. I have read studies that suggest it would take several generations before hunting had a positive effect on removing more aggressive bears vs bears that are more shy. Aggressive bear harvest is technically already happening- likely more than we know, and bad encounters are still regular occurrences.

I do however really think the management of their populations needs to be at the state level. It is laughable to think that anyone from DC would really have any idea what is happening within these ecosystems that the bears occupy. It all just boils down to votes and money, not management.
 

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
2,679
1,319
In with him. ^^

But know this, a guy shouldn't be expected to bury his family in financial peril defending himself (in regards to an attack) against the accusations from the DNR on what happened and what didn't.

A guy could just simply walk away and take it to their grave. Some people in this world still have some of "that generation" left in their veins...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winchester

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,959
4,272
53
idaho
I think yogi and booboo better mind their ps and qs or the rangers gunna git mad.:rolleyes::D


it's the same b.s. we had to go through with the wolves . no population of them will ever be high enough.

so...….… I propose a compromise (cause it's all about compromise ,right????????????).;)

since the bear to human ratio is so out of wack I propose we allow one more griz in the nation for every hundred bear lovers we uthenize. surely those so passionated about "dabears" :LOL: would happily sacrifice themselves for such a worthy cause.

I am all about compromise , so, I would even settle for every 50.
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
551
164
Not a horrible article, but pretty slanted, IMO.

On the one hand, the author is promoting sound scientific management of bears (which I agree with), but then complaining about the best available science for estimating populations. Why? Because the numbers don't fit an agenda? Even if the numbers are conservative (which they probably are), the best science available still says the numbers are high enough to warrant delisting and management returning to the States. THAT should be the discussion, not complaining about the best available science and practices to estimate populations. In particular on the duly noted fact that population estimates on grizzly bear populations are not easily acquired.

Its a pretty common practice in Wildlife Management of any animal to be conservative with population estimates, deer, elk, pronghorn etc. when considering season setting, quotas, etc. The goal is to avoid the peaks and valleys of huge population swings.

I also thinks it irresponsible to use human fatalities and injuries caused by grizzlies as the argument to kill more bears. If we want to head down that road, then should we also be advocating for killing off large portions of our deer herds because of fatalities caused from vehicle collisions with deer, elk, etc.? About 200 people per year die in vehicle collisions with wildlife like deer, elk, etc. On average, about 2 people per year die from a bear attack (black and grizzly combined) in North America. Statistically, and logically, it makes more sense to reduce the deer, elk, moose etc. populations in half to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions and the resulting 200 annual human fatalities, if the true goal and argument is simply saving human lives.

Sensationalism doesn't work for me...and facts matter. The fact is, I'm infinitely more likely to die in a vehicle collusion with a deer than I am from being killed by a bear. And that both are extremely unlikely to happen, but none the less tragic when they do happen.

But, I'm not going to be advocating to kill off 50% more of our deer and elk to save a person from, or reduce my odds of being killed in a wildlife/vehicle collision, any more than I'm going to advocate killing off 50% of the bears in North America because 2 people are killed annually either.

The debate should be focused on the facts. The facts are that the grizzly bear numbers are above the threshold to trigger delisting (via the best available science), the ESA worked, hunters in Wyoming have spent over 50 million in grizzly management, and management should be given to the States. Part of those State Management plans should include limited grizzly hunting opportunities.

Hold the sensationalism and fluff...stick to the science and stick to the facts.
 

go_deep

Veteran member
Nov 30, 2014
2,407
1,333
Wyoming
Not a horrible article, but pretty slanted, IMO.

On the one hand, the author is promoting sound scientific management of bears (which I agree with), but then complaining about the best available science for estimating populations. Why? Because the numbers don't fit an agenda? Even if the numbers are conservative (which they probably are), the best science available still says the numbers are high enough to warrant delisting and management returning to the States. THAT should be the discussion, not complaining about the best available science and practices to estimate populations. In particular on the duly noted fact that population estimates on grizzly bear populations are not easily acquired.

Its a pretty common practice in Wildlife Management of any animal to be conservative with population estimates, deer, elk, pronghorn etc. when considering season setting, quotas, etc. The goal is to avoid the peaks and valleys of huge population swings.

I also thinks it irresponsible to use human fatalities and injuries caused by grizzlies as the argument to kill more bears. If we want to head down that road, then should we also be advocating for killing off large portions of our deer herds because of fatalities caused from vehicle collisions with deer, elk, etc.? About 200 people per year die in vehicle collisions with wildlife like deer, elk, etc. On average, about 2 people per year die from a bear attack (black and grizzly combined) in North America. Statistically, and logically, it makes more sense to reduce the deer, elk, moose etc. populations in half to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions and the resulting 200 annual human fatalities, if the true goal and argument is simply saving human lives.

Sensationalism doesn't work for me...and facts matter. The fact is, I'm infinitely more likely to die in a vehicle collusion with a deer than I am from being killed by a bear. And that both are extremely unlikely to happen, but none the less tragic when they do happen.

But, I'm not going to be advocating to kill off 50% more of our deer and elk to save a person from, or reduce my odds of being killed in a wildlife/vehicle collision, any more than I'm going to advocate killing off 50% of the bears in North America because 2 people are killed annually either.

The debate should be focused on the facts. The facts are that the grizzly bear numbers are above the threshold to trigger delisting (via the best available science), the ESA worked, hunters in Wyoming have spent over 50 million in grizzly management, and management should be given to the States. Part of those State Management plans should include limited grizzly hunting opportunities.

Hold the sensationalism and fluff...stick to the science and stick to the facts.
This is the best post I've read in a really long time by anyone. Facts outweight all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taskswap

Bonecollector

Veteran member
Mar 9, 2014
5,370
2,491
Ohio
This is the best post I've read in a really long time by anyone. Facts outweight all.
Not bad.... BUT I want to be sure the author does understand that states do look at vehicle collisions and fatalities when looking at deer populations. It’s just another factor.
However this is probably a bigger factor east if the Mississippi. 👍 Now we’re all better informed. 😁
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,959
4,272
53
idaho
the problem with bear lovers is they believe the life of a bear is more important then a life of a human. unless of coarse it is their own life in danger.


I am all for the attempt to strike an acceptable balance but when the bears numbers begin to place human life/property in danger ,I place the humans interests before the bears.