What's wrong with more grizzlies in Idaho?

[HingleMcCringleberry]

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.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I’d say 5,000.

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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

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.

 

[Rotnguns]

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.

There has never been a case in Idaho of anyone being prosecuted for killing or shooting a grizzly in self defense. The bowhunters in the very recent attack at Island Park have already been cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

There has never been a case in Idaho of anyone being prosecuted for killing or shooting a grizzly in self defense. The bowhunters in the very recent attack at Island Park have already been cleared of any wrongdoing.

I understand they were already cleared, probably due to being mauled.

Fact is the possibility exists that you can currently be criminally charged due to the protected status of the bears.

 

[flyfisher117]

so we can have a season on them?

We will never have a season on them. Therefore I am against it.

More grizzlies in our state would keep the wilderness wild and add to the adventure of an outdoor experience.

Yeah..no. If I want to "experience" that I will visit MT.

 

[Blind Squirrel]

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

Watch the news. Lots of places have one.

 

[Wrench]

Ummmm they do have the ability to defend themselves. Can you show one case of someone getting fined for self defense? Or prison time?

I believe his intent is to defend his property as well as person. If you kill a wolf in Nordman you could get a reward. If you go 8 miles west you could face 25k in fines as well as prison time.

 

[Duh]

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

They already have that, it’s called the hood in most major city’s

 

[isItFallYet]

I’d say 5,000.

White men, of course?

 

[go_deep]

It's September, shouldn't y'all be out hunting instead of arguing on the Internet?

 

[idahodave]

I don't mind grizzlies in Idaho...I just really don't care for the extensive land-use restrictions that come with them.

If you're unaware of that phenomenon, you're woefully uneducated on the matter.

Dave

 

[ORJoe]

The grizzly bear is a bad combination of wants to hurt me and carries huge legal problems for me if I have to defend myself.

If I shoot an elk in self defense, I'm going to get run through the legal wringer and a few years of my life will be ruined. But an elk isn't aggressive enough put me in that position just because it sees me.

A coyote would like to hurt me, and one of them might even think he's big enough to give it a try. But if I shoot him in self defense, no one cares. If I shoot one, don't report it, and later on law enforcement finds out about it, they still don't care.

So I don't hate grizzlies, I hate the lawyer that's attached to every single one.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Ummmm they do have the ability to defend themselves. Can you show one case of someone getting fined for self defense? Or prison time?

I have zero desire to have any type of discussion with you because you are going to be condescending, snarky, and pretty much just an asshole.

 

[molliesmaster]

Why do people like to argue so much?

There's no possible way that everyone can be so inflamed about every single topic that comes up on here or on social media or whatever, tripping over yourselves and others to convey that you have the moral/intellectual high ground over some of the stupidest of concepts/topics.

Does anyones opinion in this thread actually mean anything more than anyone else's? Is anyone expecting to change policy today? Is anyone in charge of writing or voting into law anything that will actually do one single thing today?

Probably not, right? So let's just have a discussion. Leave your self-righteousness on facebook or twitter or whatever else and just have a talk here, exchange ideas, be open to concepts outside of your own bubble and toss out what you don't like, quietly.

The world sucks enough without having to be dickheads to each other over something none of us is going to change not one iota.