What's wrong with more grizzlies in Idaho?

[maxx075]

The settlers killed them off for a reason. Good enough for me.

Dinosaurs were here before - why don't we Jurassic park some up and release those too? Bunch of sentimentalists who feel what is past needs to be again. Pretty clueless actually - the world is on the verge of overpopulation, and now we're gonna restrict folks so we can have more animals that will attack just cause it sees hears or smells you. Bright.

Overpopulation is a good point.
You guys want to hunt an apex predator? Let's have a human season

 

[go_deep]

Part of the problem, in my view, is that we're being gaslighted by various groups that conduct census counts of grizzlies. Either the grizzlies in Idaho are particularly violent, or there are lots more of them than we've been told. I'd like to see an unbiased comprehensive census taken by Idaho Fish and Game - fund it with a legislative budget line item. It's difficult to make an informed decision if objectively-acquired data are lacking.

I agree. Either they've recovered, or the endangered species act doesn't work and we need to do something different, there is no in-between. Burn the whole think down and start over, or stop moving the bar and let the state game and fish manage them as they see fit.

 

[FAAFO]

Few, if anybody, on this site will argue that having wolves, grizz, and lions in the GYE is a bad thing. It's a win for conservation that this huge park is able to support thriving populations. However, when they predictably expand beyond the confines of the park, conservation shouldn't stop. Like all other game species, populations should be audited and effective management goals established including hunting seasons. However, this will never happen in our lifetimes on grizz and it's touch and go with wolves every year.

You and your rancher friends live in the middle of the predator zone. It really sucks to be them and receive, from what I've generally heard, only a fraction of the amount of money they should receive for losses due to predation. If they're receiving "fair" compensation for their losses, I think we'd all be hearing about it.

You folks may be used to and adjusted business models for this type of loss. However, saying that these predators "belong on the land" everywhere else and going a step further to push this predictable/avoidable predation loss on others for some idealistic BS is selfish at best. Hells bells, in CO ranchers can't even shoot introduced wolves that are harrassing or killing livestock without an investigation and risk of harsh penalties.

I hunted 18 miles back in the Bob in NW MT for 8 days in 2021 from 9/22-9/27. The outfitter has hunted the same area for more than 30 years. There used to be so many elk in the Bob that they were rounded up and used to bolster/re-introduce into other parts of MT with struggling herds. During that hunt, across 8 hunters and 4 guides, we glassed thousands of acres. There was exactly 1 elk seen during that hunt, and I was blessed to have an opportunity to kill it. The re-introduction of wolves (they were already there), increase in grizz numbers, existing lions, and black bears, coupled with overly liberal seasons, have decimated the Bob and surrounding areas. Yes, there are still elk and deer back there, but only a fraction of once were, and predators are a huge part of the problem.

I'm not sure of your experience on the matter as there was very close to being a grizzly bear season just few years back. And you are incorrect on the view of bears and wolves in the GYE. There are a lot of hunters and RR's that are anti bear/wolf/lion/coyote etc.

You have no experience with the compensation. How would you know if its fair or not? You are making a lot of assumptions. Think about it for a min, if it was so unfair wouldn't it be easy to find such on the internet? And if the compensation was more than fair why would any rancher blast it in news or online?

Any place you kill a protected animal there will be an investigation. Doesn't matter if its CO, ID, MT, WY etc. Ranchers in CO have the same rights as the other states, they can protect their livestock. Why wouldn't you want an investigation? They are a protected animal. Would you not want an investigation for a rancher killing elk without permits?

An Oregon rancher is charged for an elk slaughter. | State Ag and Rural Leaders

www.agandruralleaders.org

Moffat County ranchers face charges in shooting of 34 elk

CRAIG, Coloroado (AP)

www.postindependent.com

Want more?

I'm sorry you didn't get an elk in the Bob marshall wilderness. To blame predators is cop out. Historically ungulate populations go up and down. Why did the outfitter book so many clients? Sounds like the real wolf is the outfitter. The bob has a long history of numbers fluctuating. You can focus on the predators, for sure they have an impact but there is bigger issues at play. I've heard it all since wolf reintroduction how the huning is going to be ruined. Yet you can shoot more than 1 elk in MT, and 3 in WY. In fact the elk hunting is the best its ever been in Western WY. Right in the heart of wolf and grizz country. Why? Some of idaho hunters complain about elk numbers and many fail to remember the low elk numbers of the late 80s/early 90's. What caused it then?

There should be more focus on habitat and winter ranges. But thats boring. Way too easy to just blame predators. If there's any predator to blame, its man. Specifically white men. Crackers just don't care.

 

[mtnbiker208]

To be fair, elk don't eat couches.

no they don't, but to be fair, i have had a fair amount of added overhead due to governmental regulations.
All business get overhead incease with all kinds of things.


as far as colorado, they are just going thru what we went thru 30 years ago.

 

[FAAFO]

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending...outhwestern-idaho/63TJJQK4SVEBBEJPHI7SLMUDYQ/

How was this story received locally? I’m legitimately curious as your close to area ranchers.

I cannot comment as I don't know that rancher or that area. But 2,500 sheep operation isn't a very big operation.

But feel free to find an article of that rancher complaining about their compensation after the fact. It's been a couple years, should be something out there...

 

[idelkslayer]

What's wrong with more grizzlies in Idaho? It depends.

Under Federal management- More grizzlies would mean that land use restrictions could be applied to larger and larger areas. This would have negative impacts on resource use and management and maybe recreational uses.

Under State management- I don't really have a problem with more grizzlies. Idaho has a lot of places that will sustain an increased grizzly population.

 

[FAAFO]

Part of the problem, in my view, is that we're being gaslighted by various groups that conduct census counts of grizzlies. Either the grizzlies in Idaho are particularly violent, or there are lots more of them than we've been told. I'd like to see an unbiased comprehensive census taken by Idaho Fish and Game - fund it with a legislative budget line item. It's difficult to make an informed decision if objectively-acquired data are lacking.

Thats a great point, its really hard to get accurate population estimates of predators.

 

[FAAFO]

What's wrong with more grizzlies in Idaho? It depends.

Under Federal management- More grizzlies would mean that land use restrictions could be applied to larger and larger areas. This would have negative impacts on resource use and management and maybe recreational uses.

Under State management- I don't really have a problem with more grizzlies. Idaho has a lot of places that will sustain an increased grizzly population.

100%

 

[Jason Snyder]

The settlers killed them off for a reason. Good enough for me.

We also nearly market hunted some game animals out of existence. That doesn’t make it a good idea.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

How many people being mauled or killed per year is an acceptable number? 10? 20?

 

[Nightstandx]

A summary judgment ruling in Idaho District Court yesterday will prevent the state of Idaho from authorizing wolf trapping and snaring in grizzly bear habitat during non-denning periods. The decision will stop trapping and snaring in Idaho’s Panhandle, Clearwater, Salmon, and Upper Snake regions between March 1 and November 30 on public and private lands to prevent the unlawful take of Endangered Species Act-protected grizzly bears.


The decision stated, “There is ample evidence in the record, including from Idaho’s own witnesses, that lawfully set wolf traps and snares are reasonably likely to take grizzly bears in Idaho.”

this is a law protecting grizzly in Idaho.

 

[FAAFO]

How many people being mauled or killed per year is an acceptable number? 10? 20?

I’d say 5,000.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

I’d say 5,000.

Ok. Well it's not possible to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

 

[FAAFO]

Ok. Well it's not possible to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

The question was irrational.

In 2022 there were 42,000 car deaths in the US alone. I don’t find it unreasonable for having 5,000 maulings by bears. That’s not even deaths.

Hell people killed by domesticated dogs averages over 20 a year.

Currently we average about 1-2 deaths a year by grizzly bears.

So yeah, 5,000 doesn’t seem so bad

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I'm sorry you didn't get an elk in the Bob marshall wilderness. To blame predators is cop out. Historically ungulate populations go up and down.

Maybe read my post a little closer.

"During that hunt, across 8 hunters and 4 guides, we glassed thousands of acres. There was exactly 1 elk seen during that hunt, and I was blessed to have an opportunity to kill it. The "re-introduction" of wolves (they were already there), increase in grizz numbers, existing lions, and black bears, coupled with overly liberal seasons, have decimated the Bob and surrounding areas. Yes, there are still elk and deer back there, but only a fraction of once were, and predators are a huge part of the problem." This outfitter has hunted the same areas in the Bob for 30+ years. As a result, he has a better understanding of the population of elk, changes to the dynamics, and impacts than you or me.

But feel free to find an article of that rancher complaining about their compensation after the fact. It's been a couple years, should be something out there...

I'll do you one better, if your game, take the time to read the linked research study on these topics. It's from the University of Montana in 2003, but quite well done and EXTREMELY detailed. I can't imagine attitudes have changed much since then, and if they have, please feel free to provide your own support. I pasted some highlights below.
https://files.cfc.umt.edu/cesu/NPS/UMT/2001/01Patterson_predator compensation_frpt.pdf

"Design of Study
Three research initiatives were utilized for gathering data. The first approach consisted of in-depth interviews with livestock producers in four communities: Augusta, MT; Salmon, ID; Dubois, WY; and Kaycee, WY. A total of 79 interviews with 104 individuals were conducted. The second approach consisted of mail surveys sent to randomly selected livestock owners in 12 communities in each state. A total of 1200 surveys were sent out with an overall response rate of 51.1%. The third approach consisted of a general public mail survey sent to a randomly selected state-wide sample in each of the three states (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). A total of 1959 general public surveys were sent out and the overall response rate was 43.9%.

Specifically, the results suggest that among those who find a compensation program desirable there is an expectation that when a predator has been reintroduced or livestock owner’s ability to deal with predators has been restricted, society at large has a responsibility to compensate those whose livelihood has been impacted. That is, if the public determines that predators are valuable then the public should have to share the responsibility for associated costs. For the majority of respondents, livestock losses caused by predators are not seen as a normal cost of doing business and ranching is recognized as producing societal benefits (e.g. wildlife habitat and open space). However, livestock owners tend to view compensation programs as a limited tool because they address the costs of predation but not the cause. Lethal control, giving those affected by predator losses the power to solve the problem by eliminating the offending animal, is therefore an important part of the equation in the minds of many the livestock owners. Under the current system of predator management, the livestock owner's inability to remove problem predators and protect livestock is equated with a loss of private property rights."

"Even though there is widespread support for compensation, this support comes with qualifications. It is a cautious endorsement, one in which many of the livestock owners believe compensation helps, but it is not, by itself, an adequate solution. Although there was widespread support for compensation, that does not mean that the interviewees did not also see the need for other management techniques, such as control and hunting. In addition, those interviewees that did not support compensation clearly preferred other management options. Control issues, meaning either giving livestock owners the ability to kill problem animals and having hunting seasons, was one of the most discussed issues in the interviews. Issues of control are seen by many of the interviewees, both those that do and do not find compensation desirable, as preferable solutions because it is a way of actually solving the problem by removing the offending animal."

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

The question was irrational.

In 2022 there were 42,000 car deaths in the US alone. I don’t find it unreasonable for having 5,000 maulings by bears. That’s not even deaths.

Hell people killed by domesticated dogs averages over 20 a year.

Currently we average about 1-2 deaths a year by grizzly bears.

So yeah, 5,000 doesn’t seem so bad

 

[FAAFO]

Maybe read my post a little closer.

"During that hunt, across 8 hunters and 4 guides, we glassed thousands of acres. There was exactly 1 elk seen during that hunt, and I was blessed to have an opportunity to kill it. The "re-introduction" of wolves (they were already there), increase in grizz numbers, existing lions, and black bears, coupled with overly liberal seasons, have decimated the Bob and surrounding areas. Yes, there are still elk and deer back there, but only a fraction of once were, and predators are a huge part of the problem." This outfitter has hunted the same areas in the Bob for 30+ years. As a result, he has a better understanding of the population of elk, changes to the dynamics, and impacts than you or me.



I'll do you one better, if your game, take the time to read the linked research study on these topics. It's from the University of Montana in 2003, but quite well done and EXTREMELY detailed. I can't imagine attitudes have changed much since then, and if they have, please feel free to provide your own support. I pasted some highlights below.
https://files.cfc.umt.edu/cesu/NPS/UMT/2001/01Patterson_predator compensation_frpt.pdf

"Design of Study
Three research initiatives were utilized for gathering data. The first approach consisted of in-depth interviews with livestock producers in four communities: Augusta, MT; Salmon, ID; Dubois, WY; and Kaycee, WY. A total of 79 interviews with 104 individuals were conducted. The second approach consisted of mail surveys sent to randomly selected livestock owners in 12 communities in each state. A total of 1200 surveys were sent out with an overall response rate of 51.1%. The third approach consisted of a general public mail survey sent to a randomly selected state-wide sample in each of the three states (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). A total of 1959 general public surveys were sent out and the overall response rate was 43.9%.

Specifically, the results suggest that among those who find a compensation program desirable there is an expectation that when a predator has been reintroduced or livestock owner’s ability to deal with predators has been restricted, society at large has a responsibility to compensate those whose livelihood has been impacted. That is, if the public determines that predators are valuable then the public should have to share the responsibility for associated costs. For the majority of respondents, livestock losses caused by predators are not seen as a normal cost of doing business and ranching is recognized as producing societal benefits (e.g. wildlife habitat and open space). However, livestock owners tend to view compensation programs as a limited tool because they address the costs of predation but not the cause. Lethal control, giving those affected by predator losses the power to solve the problem by eliminating the offending animal, is therefore an important part of the equation in the minds of many the livestock owners. Under the current system of predator management, the livestock owner's inability to remove problem predators and protect livestock is equated with a loss of private property rights."

"Even though there is widespread support for compensation, this support comes with qualifications. It is a cautious endorsement, one in which many of the livestock owners believe compensation helps, but it is not, by itself, an adequate solution. Although there was widespread support for compensation, that does not mean that the interviewees did not also see the need for other management techniques, such as control and hunting. In addition, those interviewees that did not support compensation clearly preferred other management options. Control issues, meaning either giving livestock owners the ability to kill problem animals and having hunting seasons, was one of the most discussed issues in the interviews. Issues of control are seen by many of the interviewees, both those that do and do not find compensation desirable, as preferable solutions because it is a way of actually solving the problem by removing the offending animal."

Shit sorry I didn’t see where you got an elk.

Thanks for posting that link. Great to see it again, not sure what you’re trying to prove it’s a great read!

 

[Loo.wii]

I know from a previous thread that I've got a (very) minority opinion on this topic,

Lol

 

[Blowdowner]

Very reasonable argument but it doesn’t make nearly as much sense as wiping them off the entire lower 48 map.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

I'm not saying they should be wiped off the map. They weren't prior to ESA listing. But there are far too many in the GYE right now. With them expanding into the Missouri River breaks, southern Wyoming range, the bighorns, and the Pryor mountains, it's obvious they are at carrying capacity.

I don't even care if there is a hunting season for them, but people should have the ability to defend themselves without prison time or tens of thousands of dollars in fines hanging over their head.

If you're a rancher and one is killing your livestock? Shoot it. If you're hiking and get bluff charged? Shoot it. If you're hunting, have been successful, and one approaches your kill site while you're there? Shoot it.

And quite frankly in Wyoming if I were at G&F I would adopt the same management plan for Grizzlies that is used for wolves.