Grizzly news for MT and WY

[GoatPackr]

Feds deny Montana petition to delist grizzly bears, propose new rule on populations

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has denied Montana and Wyoming’s petition to delist grizzly bears in the Greater Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems

www.kpax.com

 

[robertpaulsen]

This is unfortunately a big step backwards and disrespectful to all the effort already put forth in the recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48.

What a bummer.

 

[GoatPackr]

ESA needs gutted. In order for it to be used a clear path for recovery should be spelled out and not able to be changed. It's not supposed to be a special interest weapon with ever changing goal post.

Hopefully the administration can accomplish something like this very soon before more people are hurt.

 

[Legend]

This is just a partisan stunt. And one that is definitely going to backfire. What kind of a politician throws gas on a dumpster fire days before they loose complete control?

Probably going to work out well for the grizzly delisting. Not sure what the ESA is going to look like after it is re-written.

 

[mtwarden]

I've always thought of the ESA legislation as important and have seen many success stories over the years. Of late sadly it's become a tool of anti-hunting groups. If a threatened or endangered woodpecker is saved, everyone is patting themselves on the back and rightly so. If it's an animal that can be hunted/trapped on the other hand —ie wolf, grizzly lynx then no celebration, instead it's a never ending filing of litigation—forcing the original bar for delisting higher and higher and never to be achieved.

What I think they forget is that legislation can be repealed and if the ESA is repealed it's squarely on their shoulders.

 

[mike.adams.467]

Management by politics, instead of science and biology.

 

[Maxhunter]

Management by politics, instead of science and biology.

Yep agree 100%

 

[FlareBlitz91]

I imagine that i have more experience with the ESA than most. I have a Biological Opinion from USFWS on Grizzly Bears in the GYE dated two days ago.

It is known and acknowledged that the GYE and Northern Continental Divide populations are healthy, robust, and resilient, but there are other essential populations that are not (bitterroot, cabinet-yaak, and Selkirk) recovered at all, or occupied even in the case of the bitterroot.

The two recovered populations are considered essential for the success of the other populations, which I’m inclined to agree with.

The service is proposing to remove the distinct population segments and change the listed entity to be the “lower 48,” i believe this will clarify the recovery goals for the species overall.

Do i think that they should be delisted? I don’t know, living in the GYE it’s hard to argue against on a local level, but looking at the swaths of unoccupied wilderness in the northern Rockies im inclined to agree that the species as a whole isn’t recovered, but they’re close.

Full disclaimer:I’m an unabashed and unapologetic bear lover.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

It would appear the goalposts have drifted yet again. Color me surprised.

 

[Pro953]

I imagine that i have more experience with the ESA than most. I have a Biological Opinion from USFWS on Grizzly Bears in the GYE dated two days ago.

It is known and acknowledged that the GYE and Northern Continental Divide populations are healthy, robust, and resilient, but there are other essential populations that are not (bitterroot, cabinet-yaak, and Selkirk) recovered at all, or occupied even in the case of the bitterroot.

The two recovered populations are considered essential for the success of the other populations, which I’m inclined to agree with.

The service is proposing to remove the distinct population segments and change the listed entity to be the “lower 48,” i believe this will clarify the recovery goals for the species overall.

Do i think that they should be delisted? I don’t know, living in the GYE it’s hard to argue against on a local level, but looking at the swaths of unoccupied wilderness in the northern Rockies im inclined to agree that the species as a whole isn’t recovered, but they’re close.

Full disclaimer:I’m an unabashed and unapologetic bear lover.

But what is an area that is part of the historical range is no longer capable of supporting a population. By that standard they would never be able to delist. This is why it’s segmented into different population groups.

It’s like basing wildlife policy for deer in Montana based on herd dynamics in Texas.

The population even if hunted to support genetic diversity and growth into these other ranges so what is the “logical” reason?

Hell I love bears too, but that does not change the fact that this makes no sense to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

The two recovered populations are considered essential for the success of the other populations, which I’m inclined to agree

So, consider those populations recovered and turn them over to the state. The state is more than capable of dealing with recovered populations and can insure they stay that way.

The service is proposing to remove the distinct population segments and change the listed entity to be the “lower 48,” i believe this will clarify the recovery goals for the species overall.

That will certainly insure they are never recovered, exactly what the anti hunting groups have been pushing for decades.

When the ESA is repealed, we’ll see what folks pushing this agenda think of their “success”.

 

[StupidLightweight]

Didn't agency behavior like this result in the Supreme Court striking down Chevron Doctrine?

 

[FlareBlitz91]

Didn't agency behavior like this result in the Supreme Court striking down Chevron Doctrine?

No. Activist judges who decided the courts are the only ones who can interpret anything about anything resulted in the striking down of Chevron.

 

[FlareBlitz91]

But what is an area that is part of the historical range is no longer capable of supporting a population. By that standard they would never be able to delist. This is why it’s segmented into different population groups.

It’s like basing wildlife policy for deer in Montana based on herd dynamics in Texas.

The population even if hunted to support genetic diversity and growth into these other ranges so what is the “logical” reason?

Hell I love bears too, but that does not change the fact that this makes no sense to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There isn’t any meaningful migration between deer in Texas and Montana.

If they were delisted right now i can guarantee you the extent of their current range is where it would stay. Hell it almost already is, when a grizz makes its way to the bighorns it invariably ends up dead.

The ESA isn’t going anywhere. People grumble about it but there isn’t anywhere close to the political will to pull that off.

States time and time again demonstrate for certain species they aren’t capable of managing them effectively. States are far more capricious than the federal government.

Say what you will about federal bureaucracy but it’s kind doesn’t change when the wind blows.

Hell Idaho just decided to kill 60% of its wolves for next to no reason last year. When i read that report/justification it left me scratching my head

 

[Wrench]

Hell Idaho just decided to kill 60% of its wolves for next to no reason last year. When i read that report/justification it left me scratching my head

Probably because Idaho has not had a success elk population in wolf predation zones and despite the bounty on the wolves they're still not shrinking in population.

 

[LFC911]

Need to send a few to CA

 

[Pescetism]

Hell Idaho just decided to kill 60% of its wolves for next to no reason last year. When i read that report/justification it left me scratching my head

No to slide the tread away from grizzlies but I think this explains the decision well and emphasizes the lack of trust people have in the (mis)management of predators.

RULES and REGULATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2008-0008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AW37
"Our current estimate for 2008 indicates the NRM DPS contains approximately 1,639 wolves (491 in Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in Wyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 in Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). These numbers are about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal. The end of 2008 will mark the ninth consecutive year the population has exceeded our numeric and distributional recovery goals."

Copied from the IDFG website
“Wolf population reduction has been a priority of the Fish and Game Commission,” Idaho Fish and Game Director Ed Schriever said. “We are encouraged by efforts that have resulted in a drop in wolf numbers, and this aligns with our long-term goal to reduce Idaho’s wolf population. We’d like to see it fluctuate around 500, which is outlined in our draft wolf management plan and aligns with the federal rule that delisted wolves,” Schriever said.

2024 Idaho wolf population estimate : 1,150

 

[bigsky2]

There isn’t any meaningful migration between deer in Texas and Montana.

If they were delisted right now i can guarantee you the extent of their current range is where it would stay. Hell it almost already is, when a grizz makes its way to the bighorns it invariably ends up dead.

The ESA isn’t going anywhere. People grumble about it but there isn’t anywhere close to the political will to pull that off.

States time and time again demonstrate for certain species they aren’t capable of managing them effectively. States are far more capricious than the federal government.

Say what you will about federal bureaucracy but it’s kind doesn’t change when the wind blows.

Hell Idaho just decided to kill 60% of its wolves for next to no reason last year. When i read that report/justification it left me scratching my head

Agree with this completely. Two years ago, MT started allowing black bear hunting with hounds. Last year the commission extended the season statewide until mid June. This year they voted to get rid of the sidebar that protected bear populations by shutting a unit down once the sow harvest reached 40%. This is all despite FWP biologists warning the commission that this liberalized harvest will lead to a reduction in the bear population.

This year legislators have already proposed a bill to allow year round wolf hunting, as well as other bills to liberalize wolf harvest. These actions do not give people a warm and fuzzy feeling about the state's ability to responsibly manage grizzly bear hunting.

 

[StupidLightweight]

These actions do not give people a warm and fuzzy feeling about the state's ability to responsibly manage grizzly bear hunting.

Responsibly or not, the states should manage them through hunting. That was the deal. Once population objectives were reached, the states took over. The Feds haven't fulfilled their end of the bargain on grizzlies.

 

[Smoke10]

The USFWS management plan objectives for GYE and NCDE to be returned to state management have been met. I believe states should manage grizzlies in these areas.

The grizz killed in the bighorns was killing cattle otherwise my guess is it might've gotten relocated closer to Yellowstone.
Grizzlies are moving farther south and will probably get to Utah if they haven't already. I don't know as much about the Missouri breaks area in MT but heard they are moving in there also.

I looked up the '22 and '23 USFWS grizzly bear recovery program reports and the southern end of the GYE "recovery zone" is at a lattitude a little north of Jackson, WY.
Here is a news article about a grizz photographed ~100 miles south of Jackson. Which is pretty much as far south as you can go in the Wyoming Range.

Wyoming Deputy Has Rare Encounter With Grizzly Near Kemmerer

A Lincoln County sheriff’s deputy caught a rare glimpse of a grizzly near Kemmerer on Thursday afternoon -- far south from where grizzlies typically…

cowboystatedaily.com

If you do research, other news articles were released around the 2020-2021 time frame stating authorities confirmed grizz sightings in this same area. I did not see the USFWS acknowledge grizzly bears this far south in either report.

Check out the picture of a sow with 3 "cubs" in this article. The guy set up a trail camera to monitor his hunting camp, somewhere in the Wyoming range.

For Grizzly Defense Handguns, Hunters Prefers Magnum Revolvers Or 10 mm Pistols

Opinions vary on what’s the best handgun to carry for grizzly defense in Wyoming. Magnum-caliber revolvers and 10 mm semiautomatic pistols seem to be the…

cowboystatedaily.com