Yellowstone grizzlys

[Beendare]

As i understand it there are 5 antis lawsuits trying to stop the proposed grizzly hunts around Yellowstone.

SCI and NRA are coming to the rescue of hunters and filed a brief to intervene. Last i heard, the court is still deciding.
Litigation

Crazy these antis won’t let the F and G do their job... but of course some New York city dwellers think they know more about wildlife than actual professionals that live there and study them.....jeez, thats scewed up.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I think they all blew thier wads 10years ago. They showed all thier cards and F&G and private sector paid attention. They will be left with one option and that’s a tag buy back. Wonder if Patagonia will get involved on the tag buy back this time.....

 

[Gerard Marcaurele]

So what happens to the anti’s heads when they realize that stopping the hunt effectively hires the “sharpshooters” to kill the grizzlies and bury them instead of the grizzly hunt bringing much needed income to F&G?

 

[Fitzwho]

If I draw it, they are more than welcome to buy me off on not hunting one. For about $60k. That way I can go on a stone sheep hunt and maybe swing over to Kodiak and chase a Brown Bear on the way home.

 

[skaldugwas]

So what happens to the anti’s heads when they realize that stopping the hunt effectively hires the “sharpshooters” to kill the grizzlies and bury them instead of the grizzly hunt bringing much needed income to F&G?

They don’t care that the bears die, they just don’t want them killed by humans who “enjoy” killing them. Thats why every rational argument FOR hunting sails right over their heads or falls on deaf ears. They are irrational people.

The funny part is that most hunters may not exclusively enjoy killing, but the sharpshooter hired by the state most certainly enjoys stopping hearts.

 

[huntaholic123]

Its unfortunate that logical arguments can't be made with anti's. Hope the courts make the right decision and allow F&G to properly manage wildlife with science and study rather than emotion alone.

 

[ClearCreek]

So what happens to the anti’s heads when they realize that stopping the hunt effectively hires the “sharpshooters” to kill the grizzlies and bury them instead of the grizzly hunt bringing much needed income to F&G?

There won't be "sharpshooters" hired, G&F personnel have and will continue to kill "conflict bears" like they have been doing for many years. Usually about 40-50 bears per year are killed this way.

ClearCreek

 

[Beendare]

There won't be "sharpshooters" hired, G&F personnel have and will continue to kill "conflict bears" like they have been doing for many years. Usually about 40-50 bears per year are killed this way.

ClearCreek

I have a problem with this ^...it seems like a poor solution just to sweep it under the rug and appease the antis. I know of states that have hunters doing depredation hunts...at no cost and they utilize the meat.

Why not have a draw hunt for the general public and raise money with tag sales vs paying a state trapper/shooter?

 

[RAPTOR]

I have a problem with this ^...it seems like a poor solution just to sweep it under the rug and appease the antis. I know of states that have hunters doing depredation hunts...at no cost and they utilize the meat.

Why not have a draw hunt for the general public and raise money with tag sales vs paying a state trapper/shooter?

Because the antis view it as "trophy" hunting and don't want anyone killing those animals that may enjoy it. They don't see/know about the G&F people killing problem bears, nor would they know if they did hire sharpshooters.

 

[ClearCreek]

Because the antis view it as "trophy" hunting and don't want anyone killing those animals that may enjoy it. They don't see/know about the G&F people killing problem bears, nor would they know if they did hire sharpshooters.

The "anti's" know that conflict bears are killed as it is not at all a secret. It was mentioned at the grizzly bear public meeting I attended.

Also, don't kid yourself, the "anti's" would know immediately if it would be proposed that "sharpshooters" be used to reduce grizzly bear numbers.

As you mentioned, as long as hunters are not able to legally hunt grizzly bears, the anti's seem to be somewhat satisfied. It is the idea of a legal hunt that they are most opposed to. I think their greatest fear is that a legal hunt would be successful; that is, a few bears would be taken each year and there still would be plenty of bears for people to see, encounter and "enjoy", etc.


ClearCreek

 

[Neverenoughhntn]

The funny part is that most hunters may not exclusively enjoy killing, but the sharpshooter hired by the state most certainly enjoys stopping hearts.

.... boy, if that’s truly the way you feel, I’d hate to know what you think of our military....

I know a few “sharpshooters”, and that is definitely not where they find gratification. They truly enjoy serving the public and resolving conflicts. It’s easy to resent them for what they do, especially when there is such limited/no opportunity for the sportsmen. Just remember, they aren’t the ones limiting your opportunity.

While I definitely agree that sportsmen opportunities should be maximized to try and reduce conflicts, I acknowledge that there is still a need for the “sharp shooter”. There is a time and place, where brining in sportsmen isn’t always practical or safe. I also know that they feel the same way about maximizing sportsmen opportunity.

As for disposing of depredating wildlife, rather than salvaging.... I get it. (It doesn’t mean I agree with it). If people were 100% honest and well intentioned all the time, everything would be salvaged. My understanding is that it is done so people don’t invite wildlife conflict in order to fill their freezer or their favorite charity’s.

 

[Neverenoughhntn]

The biggest reason state game agencies don’t jump in and manage through sportsmen with grizz, wolfs, etc is due to $. Like it or not, the antis have a much bigger treasure chest to fight these issues than the sportsmen or game agencies. As has been demonstrated, the antis aren’t shy about bringing litigation to further their agenda. State game agencies know that they are going to be sued as soon as they propose a hunt, or increase harvest, so they tend to wait until they feel they have all the data to support their case and win in court. In the mean time, it is an easier sell to strictly remove animals creating conflict, rather than utilize sportsmen (providing a recreational opportunity) to prevent the conflict in the first place.

It’s a screwed up world we live in today.

 

[skaldugwas]

.... boy, if that’s truly the way you feel, I’d hate to know what you think of our military....

I know a few “sharpshooters”, and that is definitely not where they find gratification. They truly enjoy serving the public and resolving conflicts. It’s easy to resent them for what they do, especially when there is such limited/no opportunity for the sportsmen. Just remember, they aren’t the ones limiting your opportunity.
.

No resentment here, Since you brought it up, having served in our military I think quite a lot of it.
As for the very minor part of my previous statement you jumped all over...
its just a fact. If part of your job description is killing, then that part must be appealing or at the very least acceptable to you, otherwise this being a free country... you would find something else as soon as you could.

I have to believe that for the guy working the bolt at the slaughter house for 20 years there must be something appealing to a job others would avoid, otherwise he would find something else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

There's nothing about logic in all of this. Look at BC, we lost the griz hunt based on an election promise to appease the enviros, which out number hunters. Easy vote grab. Nobody in the actual gov't depts thought it was a good idea, nor did the science based data support a ban.

15,000+ griz in BC and we can't hunt them.

Glad to hear you guys got the hunt back (and the numbers support one) but good luck keeping it!

The key is to not fight the antis, but gain support of the apathetic general public that are easily swayed by emotion. You will never convince an anti tio change their position, so you have to focus on the others who can understand logic.

 

[Neverenoughhntn]

No resentment here, Since you brought it up, having served in our military I think quite a lot of it.
As for the very minor part of my previous statement you jumped all over...
its just a fact. If part of your job description is killing, then that part must be appealing or at the very least acceptable to you, otherwise this being a free country... you would find something else as soon as you could.

I have to believe that for the guy working the bolt at the slaughter house for 20 years there must be something appealing to a job others would avoid, otherwise he would find something else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for your service, as do I.

.... just remember there are plenty of crazies that feel the same way about the military, and I would wholeheartedly disagree with them as well.

Honestly, I’m not trying to attack you in any way. I just have a distaste for statements of moral superiority in the outdoor world. It’s easy to get tunnel vision and forget to see how it applies in the big picture. It’s pretty easy for someone to apply your logic to guides, people in the outdoor industry (Rinella, Vincent, Snyder, etc). They all make their living off killing as well. Does that mean that they are sadistic, troubled individuals just in it to “enjoy stopping hearts”? Absolutely not..... then we end up down the rabbit hole of long range, vs archery vs trad, etc ..

Point being, let’s not demonize people or industry’s by speculating what their motivations are for doing a job.... In my opinion, we need unity not division.

I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this topic.

.... anyways, thanks again for your service!

 

[FLAK]

Never thought it would happen but I'm in.