What's wrong with more grizzlies in Idaho?

[Jason Snyder]

I was around when it happened, so ALL the info I had was first hand from the individuals involved (including the court verdict). So my info may be very biased.

I could only find this one media reference to the incident online, so I may need to educate myself on searching incident reports and court documents.

Shed Antler Collector with .40 Against Sow Grizzly (FOIA)

Another real life defense of self, with a pistol, from a grizzly bear attack gleaned from the Freedom of Information Act request by AmmoLand, in Wyoming, 2016.

www.ammoland.com

Per this, they were never charged.

On April 7, 2017, the US Fish & Wildlife Service Special Agent received a letter of Declination for Prosecution from the Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Wyoming.

I’m confused.

 

[Chrisamx]

From earth dot org, a rewilding NGO:

"The presence of top carnivores in an ecosystem not only holds ecological value but serves an economic and social purpose to humans. Rewilding, or more specifically trophic rewilding, is shedding light on the importance of predators and providing evidence of their benefits. The results will also help to advocate for the protection of existing trophic chains that are regulated by their top predator."

The last sentence, "...advocate for the protection of existing trophic chains that are regulated by their top predator." Should make all take notice. They are talking about protecting predator's food supplies, which means banning hunting by humans.

 

[Hoosker Doo]

Per this, they were never charged.



I’m confused.

Good job doing some homework.

I was told a year after the fact that they had not heard a verdict from their hearing. I assumed court hearing, but it appears maybe it was hearing with USFWS as part of the investigation that never produced enough evidence to prosecute.

Thanks for the fact check.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Good job doing some homework.

I was told a year after the fact that they had not heard a verdict from their hearing. I assumed court hearing, but it appears maybe it was hearing with USFWS as part of the investigation that never produced enough evidence to prosecute.

Thanks for the fact check.

So is it safe to assume /summarize the federal agents took statements, forwarded the case file to the US AG and they declined to prosecute?

 

[stoopiddumbman]

whats wrong? well my wife hasn't touched me in 2 years since i bought fish net long johns, so now i can't risk a grizzly ripping them, have to stay home and argue on rokslide. thats what is wrong, rot.

 

[Hoosker Doo]

So is it safe to assume /summarize the federal agents took statements, forwarded the case file to the US AG and they declined to prosecute?

I would assume that's correct.

 

[Cheddar]

I know from a previous thread that I've got a (very) minority opinion on this topic, but why are so many against grizzly bears expanding into some of the areas in Idaho that they used to inhabit, and establishing a stable population so we can have a season on them? I think we're seeing a rather disproportional number of attacks here in Idaho because this apex predator has lost their fear of us. We've got plenty of other predators more than capable of handing us our lunch, but they don't. In over fifty years living and hunting here, I cannot recall a single lion attack (other than a pet that was let loose to get pregnant near Idaho City - a story in itself). Yet California, where as I understand, lions are protected, attacks are more and more frequent. Because we run lions and black bear with dogs and have a long season on them, they have developed a legacy fear and respect for us. In other states, not so much. More grizzlies in our state would keep the wilderness wild and add to the adventure of an outdoor experience. We need more risk opportunities in our lives in general - we're becoming soft as a society. Just my two cents on this topic.

the problem is cost/risk vs reward. what is the reward? bears get to live here and we feel warm and fuzzy about it? Vs millions of dollars, legal battles, public safety, private property risk, risk to local herds/harvest rates, flooding of environmentalist agencies entering the state, political tension, etc etc. The only way i would support it is if it would guarantee less people would come to Idaho.

 

[treydfoster]

but you'd have zero chance of surviving a determined attack by a wolf pack. Same goes for a lion or even a black bear.

Speak for yourself, broski.

 

[treydfoster]

Wolves are a different animal. Grizzlies, even where they are hunted, consistently maul hunters, hikers, etc. It’ll fundamentally change the backcountry experience in idaho. Wolves don’t worry me one bit. Carefree hiking with kids in grizz country would not happen for me - we’d get out but its a fundamentally different experience.

Heck, read Undaunted Courage or the Lewis and Clark diaries - grizzlies were all over those guys and scared the pants off them. Wolves aren’t mentioned at all as a matter of concern. And it’s not because one was hunted and the other wasn’t.

If you’re counting on hunting enough grizz to make them stop mauling people, I do think you’re being naive. It would be 20 or 30 years until there’s a meaningful hunt. Again, look at wolves, and grizzlies (for whatever reason) provoke even more litigation and politics. And even if there’s a hunt I don’t think it will have the same results.

A wolf was recorded in the diary's attacking two members of the expedition.

 

[roosiebull]

The politics won't ever change. It took almost a decade to wander through the wolf bs to get a season. All we will see is more forest locked down for habitat. Grizzlies would present nothing more than an extremely useful tool in green group litigation.

That’s pretty much the gist imo, I would never trust the government to allow proper management, even if they tried, they would be buried in a pile of lawsuits, that’s how the opposition operates.

What benefit is there to introducing another predator to the landscape? There is no overpopulation of ungulates, and to my understanding, it’s the opposite in Idaho.

It’s a no win scenario for hunters and the wildlife

 

[Blowdowner]

They’re absolute beasts and it’s sad they were wiped out of many places but only a sick f&&& would bring them back. A disgusting city dwelling art snob shriveled dork environmentalist.

If any of you are smoking enough weed that you think feeling bad for their decline means we should release them in a new state from the back of a pickup truck, just catch a bunch of feral hogs or carp, go up to Canada and leave their cousins an offering.

We all came of age in an era with some of the lowest predator numbers ever. I’m a hunter because as a 7 year old I could play in the woods all day and it was basically impossible for me to encounter even a coyote or black bear. If there were mountain lions, wolves or grizzlies I’d be an indoor cat scared of the wind. Watch what you wish for.

 

[SwiftShot]

I know from a previous thread that I've got a (very) minority opinion on this topic, but why are so many against grizzly bears expanding into some of the areas in Idaho that they used to inhabit, and establishing a stable population so we can have a season on them? I think we're seeing a rather disproportional number of attacks here in Idaho because this apex predator has lost their fear of us. We've got plenty of other predators more than capable of handing us our lunch, but they don't. In over fifty years living and hunting here, I cannot recall a single lion attack (other than a pet that was let loose to get pregnant near Idaho City - a story in itself). Yet California, where as I understand, lions are protected, attacks are more and more frequent. Because we run lions and black bear with dogs and have a long season on them, they have developed a legacy fear and respect for us. In other states, not so much. More grizzlies in our state would keep the wilderness wild and add to the adventure of an outdoor experience. We need more risk opportunities in our lives in general - we're becoming soft as a society. Just my two cents on this topic.

There will never be a season on them. The crazy people will tie up any management plan in court for decades.

 

[roosiebull]

Has anyone read the study they did in Oregon at some point about lions in the east side of the state? I don’t remember the details of the study, but what really stood out to me was a lion had an average of 12hrs with their kills before a black bear would take it… I can’t imagine that number getting better if you add grizz to the mix… black bear kill a lot of ungulates by stealing lion kills and forcing lions to kill more frequently aside from the direct impact black bears have by actually killing ungulates… what would a study like that look like in grizz country? Bear in general have more impact than we realize by stealing kills and forcing the killers to kill more

Besides that particular study, I have never heard about that… wonder why?

 

[Article 4]

There is nothing wrong with wanting more grizzlies. I’m on board for grizzly and wolf reintroductions. As are the majority of Americans. The world doesn’t revolve around hunters. Guys that preach conservation of one species but not another? Hypocrites.

I’ll always remember seeing my first wild wolf a few years after reintroduction. Great day and it didn’t hurt I shot a bull elk too.

Management is different than conservation.
G Bears have always been here and they have a place. So does hunting them. Period

Management does not only apply to ungulates. It applied to every species. G Bears are one of the only species that can smell calf elk - they kill an average of 20 per year. Are you comfortable with less elk = less elk year after year?