Killing illegal grizzly cheaper than legal?

TVW,
I understand your feelings on this!
However I have had dogs for most of my life.
I don’t take them hunting or backpacking, ever!!
Dogs are bear magnets!
I always have a large caliber handgun with me when I am away from home!
I am surrounded by grizzlies, theoretically!
When I am uncomfortable is when I have to drive to Anchorage!

It's a weird one for sure and I do see both sides of it.

I grew up and still live in North Idaho. For about the first 30 years of my life we did not have Grizzlies. Now they are becoming more and more common in the river drainage that my family recreates in as well as in the mountains directly behind my house.

It's not a great feeling to have to worry about my dogs, kids etc. every time we go camping and huckleberry picking that their could be a "monster" just on the other side of the brush that could kill them in one swipe. It always seems to be the folks who live where grizzlies don't or can't live due to urbanization that are most supportive of them. Those of us who live where the grizzlies live have to deal with the reality of it.

It's a lot easier to want "intact ecosystems" when you live in a subdivision that has destroyed everything about the ecosystem.
 
A couple of weeks ago a local resident posted photos in a local blog
of a set of large grizzly tracks on their property!

That was during a very warm spell in our weather, +24F
It is back to a more seasonal temp of -41F so I suspect that he is back
sawing logs in his den?
 
Not.

I'm not a fan of poachers and with these comments, more than one forum member is supporting the poacher by not condemning his actions. Take these comments and combine them with comments from the recent anti-predator posts, it does not paint a flattering portrait of hunters.

You said it was "fully supported." It's not.
 
I want thriving, huntable populations of elk, antelope, and Prairie chickens in my area, because historically there was.

It seems hypocritical and selfish to want just them because I could hunt them.

Also, if grizzlies did expand like many people want, it would also mean there was no real argument that management should go back to states... Which would mean hunting... Which would mean they would have more fear of man then they do now.
 
Last edited:
I want thriving, huntable populations of elk, antelope, and Prairie chickens in my area, because historically there was.

It seems hypocritical and selfish to want them because I could hunt them.

Also, if grizzlies did expand like many people want, it would also mean there was no real argument that management should go back to states... Which would mean hunting... Which would mean they would have more fear of man then they do now.
Id actually would agree with you on that aspect with if they expanded like people want, they would be able to be manageable. But realistically, it'll turn more into what happened to wolves, no management until its to late.
 
Id actually would agree with you on that aspect with if they expanded like people want, they would be able to be manageable. But realistically, it'll turn more into what happened to wolves, no management until its to late.
In reality, that's more likely.

But if we're talking about what we want, I want grizzlies! Lol

Politics and people's refusal to compromise (on both sides) likely mean we'll keep getting what we have.
 
In reality, that's more likely.

But if we're talking about what we want, I want grizzlies! Lol

Politics and people's refusal to compromise (on both sides) likely mean we'll keep getting what we have.
Oh I agree, with properly managed bears id love to have them, doing even a control griz hunt would be a dream in the lower 48 that wasn't a once in a life time hunt.
 
Like how there's no elk or deer or moose in Yellowstone?

Like how no one wants to hunt the god forsaken mess we call Alaska because of all the wolves and grizzlies?
Wellllllll.......alaska is overrun with hunters actually. Did you ever go to Yellowstone before the wolves? Elk herds of 100's visible in fields from the road. Moose all over the place. Now, its a stretch to see a moose period, and only a tiny fraction of the elk that used to live there.
 
I don’t know about 94 specifically, but after the big , overhyped
Yellowstone fire,the elk populations flourished because of the habitat enhancement!
Just shows that there are a lot of factors involved!
 
Wellllllll.......alaska is overrun with hunters actually. Did you ever go to Yellowstone before the wolves? Elk herds of 100's visible in fields from the road. Moose all over the place. Now, its a stretch to see a moose period, and only a tiny fraction of the elk that used to live there.
That's my point about Alaska.

They're also down places without animal predators. Did you see what the actual researcher said?

I've also acknowledged that there will be some impact. I'm fine with that.

And if they were truly "back" there would be management, aka hunting. Which is a variable not in Yellowstone. But that brings us back to the Alaska example.
 
Hunters being all over alaska does NOT mean there are plenty of animals. Thats a dumb assumption you are making. You said people aren't hunting alaska much.
 
I don’t know about 94 specifically, but after the big , overhyped
Yellowstone fire,the elk populations flourished because of the habitat enhancement!
Just shows that there are a lot of factors involved!
they just ran away and never came back. got it.

What about Idaho lobo unit studies?

what about the Alaska bear and wolf culling in Wood-Tikvhik?

B.C wolf culling?
 
I want thriving, huntable populations of elk, antelope, and Prairie chickens in my area, because historically there was.

It seems hypocritical and selfish to want just them because I could hunt them.

Also, if grizzlies did expand like many people want, it would also mean there was no real argument that management should go back to states... Which would mean hunting... Which would mean they would have more fear of man then they do now.

I read this 3 times and I need to take a walk and try again apparently.
 
That's my point about Alaska.

They're also down places without animal predators. Did you see what the actual researcher said?

I've also acknowledged that there will be some impact. I'm fine with that.

And if they were truly "back" there would be management, aka hunting. Which is a variable not in Yellowstone. But that brings us back to the Alaska example.
Didnt Alaska just smoke like 94 bears, to help unglutes in an area
 
I guess I don’t understand your questions?
No context I I suppose!?
You seem to be very passionate about the subject and seem to just throw comments out!?
As far as “culling”
I have always supported hunting of bears and wolves!
The FEDS be damned!!
I hunt bears regularly!
I intend to hunt bears for the rest of my hunting years!,
I am a snob about it though!
I Do Not support bearbaiting,
Do Not support hunting with dogs
I Do Not Rifle hunt!,
Handguns only!
 
That 94 number was referring to elk numbers in 1994 I think!?
As far as the predator control programs in Alaska the only bear
involved ones are the areas that they allow bear baiting stations ,
which I Do Not Support
 
Also , another part of the predator control program in Northern part of the State
is that residents are allowed one bear a year, instead of the one bear every
four years like the rest of the State!
And we don’t have to buy the $25 tag
 
There was a good documentary on history channel the other day that showed a very large increase in elk calf predation/mortality by grizzly bears due to sudden drop off of cutthroat trout numbers that was caused by invasive lake trout flourishing. Bottom line was that the culprits weren’t wolves or lions. It was grizzlies and is well accepted that they are the main source of elk predation.
 
Back
Top