Opinions on the grizzly hunt

S

schoolhousegrizz

Very Active Member
Messages
2,577
LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-18 AT 08:58PM (MST)[p]I am extremely excited that it looks like a grizzly hunt will happen. However, I must admit when I saw Wyoming giving 24 tags I got a little concerned. I know the environmentalist will moan and complain regardless, but I think giving out that many tags could drive them to put up more of a fight, and get more support on their side. It may not be the best idea for future grizzly hunts. I feel like the 12 tags out of the monitoring area was a bit of a loophole that Wyoming found, which is great, but I can see it causing problems. Maybe I am wrong. I feel like Wyoming maybe should have eased into this a little more. I worry that given out this many tags this fast will lead to shutting the hunt down. Do any of you feel the same way? The idea was to give Idaho Wyoming and Montana a total of 19 tags and Wyomings share was 12. Maybe they should have just stuck with that this first year and let people hunt in and out of the monitoring Zone. What do you guys think, should they have eased into it a little more? I hope these Hunt's continue forever.
 
Their can only be 2 sows taken so that may very well limit just how many total grizz are taken. Once that sow quota is filled the hunting is over.
Wyoming has done their homework on grizz, $50 million dollars worth so I'm confident their numbers are sound.
If we could get some older boars out of the population numbers may go up due to lower depredation on young bears from the boars.
 
Thanks, I believe the hunting would still continue out of the monitoring Zone. I think the Bears out of the monitoring zone are not connected to the quota of the Bears inside the monitoring Zone, I could be wrong though.
 
Won't comment on whether there are too many or too few bears to justify 24 tags, I'm not a WY bear biologist. But, negotiation is an art. Would be stupid to start low...
 
It doesn't matter whether the tag number is 200 or 2 the antis are going to come after it full force. For reference look at what they did with the Florida bear hunt. Its all about spin with them, not facts. In Florida they actually used high success rates with the hunters as proof they were doing to much damage to the population because the state actually had made comment about supplying more tags than the projected harvest for "opportunity". Ended up there were probably three times as many bears in the state than biologists thought and that harvest objective was exceeded in about two days.

The best thing Wyoming can learn from that mistake is not to manage this hunt for "opportunity". Let everyone know from the beginning that the state is releasing 24 tags with an expectation of 24 dead grizzly bears.

Population estimates for the fauna are notoriously inaccurate. I will go ahead and tell you their accuracy gets worse and worse under two factors and that is population estimates by a state employee and population estimates on a predator. This scenario is both. Go talk to a biologist you can actually trust and he will admit that they are guessing. AND THAT IS THE TRUTH. However they are put under tremendous pressure by political superiors and nowadays even the courts to be some kind of Dr. Doolittle running an animal census because he can talk to animals. That's not reality.

Either way Wyoming is facing a battle. The best thing they can learn and prepare for right now is spin and marketing. Stand firmly with your science but know how, and have a plan, to shuck and jive with the press and the judges.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-18 AT 06:03PM (MST)[p]Yes, I agree with both of you. Maybe it's good that they are giving out that many tags when the antis are going to try and shut it down regardless. Hopefully it does not come back and bite them, I'm just saying I can see it happening.
 
>It doesn't matter whether the tag
>number is 200 or 2
>the antis are going to
>come after it full force.
> For reference look at
>what they did with the
>Florida bear hunt. Its
>all about spin with them,
>not facts. In Florida
>they actually used high success
>rates with the hunters as
>proof they were doing to
>much damage to the population
>because the state actually had
>made comment about supplying more
>tags than the projected harvest
>for "opportunity". Ended up
>there were probably three times
>as many bears in the
>state than biologists thought and
>that harvest objective was exceeded
>in about two days.
>
>The best thing Wyoming can learn
>from that mistake is not
>to manage this hunt for
>"opportunity". Let everyone know
>from the beginning that the
>state is releasing 24 tags
>with an expectation of 24
>dead grizzly bears.
>
>Population estimates for the fauna are
>notoriously inaccurate. I will
>go ahead and tell you
>their accuracy gets worse and
>worse under two factors and
>that is population estimates by
>a state employee and population
>estimates on a predator.
>This scenario is both.
>Go talk to a biologist
>you can actually trust and
>he will admit that they
>are guessing. AND THAT
>IS THE TRUTH. However
>they are put under tremendous
>pressure by political superiors and
>nowadays even the courts to
>be some kind of Dr.
>Doolittle running an animal census
>because he can talk to
>animals. That's not reality.
>
>
>Either way Wyoming is facing a
>battle. The best thing
>they can learn and prepare
>for right now is spin
>and marketing. Stand firmly
>with your science but know
>how, and have a plan,
>to shuck and jive with
>the press and the judges.
>

After listening to the large carnivore biologist who as been working on grizz for years in Wyoming I believe they have some good numbers on population, they do underestimate on purpose.
USFW already has 7 lawsuits filed against them over grizz.
We went through this with bison and got it passed through for a hunt, may take time but it will happen.
 
Tri said it and he's correct:

The best thing Wyoming can learn from that mistake is not to manage this hunt for "opportunity". Let everyone know from the beginning that the state is releasing 24 tags with an expectation of 24 dead grizzly bears.

The first guys I feel for, they will at least become targets for harassment.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
They are only allowing 2 hunters in the field with a tag at a time with the 12 tags in the monitored areas. I would be very surprised if all 12 of those tags are filled with the way they are going to do it. I don't see how a judge can say they aren't being conservative, when they are monitoring hunters 2 at a time. I sure hope it happens, but I would rather them make you pay the full amount up front for the draw like a sheep tag, which would make people who are actually serious about hunting them apply instead of everyone in the state.
 
I don't mind paying up front but what happens to my tag if the sow quota shuts the hunt down?
Gonna need more info.
 
As usual tristate isn't even close to correct. The population is not being estimated by just State Biologists.

Secondly, there is not going to be an on-going hard quota or an expectation to kill 24 grizzlies. There is a total bear mortality quota per year, with varying percentages (male/female), based on known populations. That was determined by the leading bear biologists involved in grizzly management via the best available science. If the percentage of population mortality is not met, then the following year there will be a season not to exceed the total bear mortality quota.

There will likely be years that a season is not authorized, as all taking of bears is counted against the allowed mortality quota...poaching, self defense, problem bear removal, hit by vehicles, etc. etc. Other years, there may be up to 24 bears taken, all depends on the known mortality.

The way this hunt is being proposed is very smart, the I;'s have been dotted and T's crossed here.

That's not to imply that there wont be lawsuits filed against Wyoming, but currently, as wytex pointed out, all 7 lawsuits are against the USFWS, not the State of Wyoming.

I trust the biologists and the science regarding this hunt, Wyoming hunters have invested a huge amount of money and the grizzly recovery is a success story if there ever was one. The biologists involved with the recovery don't need to be questioned, they deserve to be congratulated on recovering grizzlies to the point of again allowing limited hunting.
 
I think the 24 number could easily be doubled to manage the species effectively. There is a buffer zone around the park. So, really Buzz is right about them dotting the I's and crossing the T's. I just hope Wyoming accepts my $600 proposal for a tag.
 
I have no doubt that the science is behind hunting 24 grizzlies in wyoming, but I can't help but wonder if they maybe should have eased into it a little more. Remember the wolves? Wyoming was the most zealous to get after them when protection got lifted, and because Idaho and Montana played it a little safer, they got a hunt wolves several years sooner than Wyoming did.

Sometimes I think slowly easing ourselves into these things helps out in the long run, but I guess time will tell. Idaho and Montana are once again easing themselves into this thing while Wyoming is charging ahead. I just hope things don't get tied up in Wyoming like they did with wolves.
 
As usual BuzzH didn't read before he posted his defensive butthurt garbage. Go back and read slick. I never said the population estimates were done by "just State Biologists".

"The biologists involved with the recovery don't need to be questioned, they deserve to be congratulated on recovering grizzlies to the point of again allowing limited hunting."

Then BuzzH types that garbage. EVERY BIOLOGIST NEEDS TO BE QUESTIONED. I am a biologist and I need to be questioned. ARE WYOMING BIOLOGISTS ROYALTY? When you end up with the idea that a biologist shouldn't be questioned, or any scientist for that matter, you end up with good ol' problems like the EPA, global warming treaties, and a million different examples of government over reach.

BuzzH, please explain to me how any biologist should be congratulated on recovering grizzly populations in the lower 48????? Were they feeding grizzly sows, or restocking grizzly in areas they are going to hunt now? Were they using AI from Canadian Bears to help the genetics. Please elaborate on all the hard biologist labor that recovered grizzlies?

Maybe you should spend a little more time on the getting your hands dirty and a little less time being a keyboard commando for Wyoming Biologists.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-18 AT 04:03PM (MST)[p]Tristate,

Actually, no they don't need to be questioned by you. The population estimates have been provided to the courts to determine if delisting is warranted.

The science and their supporting documentation proved that and fulfilled the obligation of the court and ESA, which has resulted in delisting and now will lead to a hunting season in Wyoming. The proof is in the pudding.

Absolutely the biologists need to be congratulated. Unlike you, they were the guys/gals on the ground getting their hands dirty collecting data and managing bears. They also supplied all the relevant science to support the delisting. Delisting doesn't happen without science to support the decisions and satisfy the courts/ESA requirements. They're also the same people that entered into inter-agency agreements on how best to manage grizzlies, their habitat, and finally to make delisting a reality.

I understand you like to argue just to hear yourself argue, but the place we are now with grizzlies didn't happen by chance...lots of good people did a lot of hard work to get there.

And Wyoming hunters shelled out 50 million to manage, recover, and get grizzlies delisted.

Carry on...
 
All that blah blah blah buzzh just to keep from answering the questions. Please tell me how people collecting data got grizzlies humping to make more bears?

Please explain to us how 50 million dollars actually makes bear babies.

I never stated people didn't work hard to get bears delisted. What you don't understand in your butthurt tantrum is that same hard work gets used against you by the antis because politicians and judges want exact answers for an inexact science and state biologists oblige them.

You don't know how many grizzlies there are. You don't know how many breading sows there are. You don't know how many died last year. You know there is a population stable enough to sustain a hunt this year. Now sit back and watch how the antis will use what you said you knew, that you really didn't, against you.
 
Oftentimes I don't see eye-to-eye with Tri-State but I don't think he said anything wrong in his first post. In fact I think Tri-State has gotten a lot better over this past year. I think he was just offering his opinion.
 
tristate,

Not sure why you insist on the name calling and trash talk...not how adults discuss issues. But, to each their own.

The way that the biologists worked to increase the grizzly populations are many.

Things like seasonal/permanent closures to critical habitat areas, which takes cooperation between State, Tribal, and Federal Agencies. Identifying and augmenting/management practices that enhance critical bear habitat.

Measures to keep large areas of habitat from being fragmented.

Educating the public on how to interact with bears both in the interface areas as well as backcountry. Informing the public how to avoid situations that result in bears needing to be removed for causing problems. Non-lethal measures to deal with problem bears.

The list goes on and on.

I guess in your mind, if we aren't stocking bears, like we stock trout raised in a raceway, then we aren't helping the bear population?

I would like to believe that anyone who claims to be a biologist, would intuitively know that when you provide bears with the required habitat, collaborate with and educate the public/landowners, with the various State, Tribal, and Federal agencies all on board...it only bears (pun be intended) one thing, and that's a recovered, huntable population.

Its how things are done here...YMMV and obviously does.
 
Buzzh,

You attacked me because you couldn't read. That's why you got the treatment you did.

As for your answers I want you to look at them. Everything you posted as biologists increasing grizzlies was actually goverment managing people, not wildlife.

You seem to think I am attacking something you are a little to emotionally attached to. In reality I am just telling you how anti hunters spin your words and science against you JUST LIKE I CAN DO TO YOU. The difference is they are even better at it than I am. That's what grizzly hunting and all hunting is facing.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-18 AT 07:30PM (MST)[p]Tristate,

I didn't attack you at all, just pointed out what you said, which you did, and what you said wasn't correct.

Just because you don't like the correct answers I provided, on how biologists have recovered bears, doesn't mean the answers aren't true.

Conserving and providing habitat is absolutely critical to any species and typically results in increased populations.

For the record, it was the biologists for the various agencies that made the recommendations regarding habitat requirements...from stem to stern throughout the entire process.

I'm not emotionally attached to anything, just glad to see grizzlies delisted and anxious to get my name in the hat for a tag come July.

If anyone sounds emotional about this issue, go back and read your own posts...sure like to use Caps Lock a bunch for someone who isn't emotional.
 
Buzzh,

Now you are a liar. Congratulations you earned it.

Now you say this.

"Conserving and providing habitat is absolutely critical to any species and typically results in increased populations."

Couldn't agree more. What kind of habitat management did the biologists do? Oh wait they didn't actually restore any habitat. They just managed people.

As usual you are to butthurt to see the point. You are demanding we appreciate all the biologists hard work restoring this species when in reality they didn't do any BIOLOGY work to restore the species. THEY MANAGED PEOPLE not bears. Then you think this makes them some type of person who is above all questioning??????????

What is your emotional attachment to these biologists you hero worship? Are you still butthurt over the deer age they blew up your skirt?
 
IdahoHntr,

I asked myself that same question, and your question is a good one regarding the 24 bear quota.

The way that Wyoming manages is by using the best available science to set mortality quotas, establish viable numbers to be hunted, structure the season to not exceed male and female quotas, obtain total population numbers, etc. etc. etc.

The State biologists from Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho as well as their tribal and Federal counterparts, they know more than any other group of people alive on planet earth about all things grizzly bear.

If there were better data, and people that knew more, I would know who they are...fact is, there just simply is not.

Having personally reviewed the way the Wyoming season is being done, I have no reason to not fully trust the way the season is going to move forward. The hunting public, the GF Commission, the biologists have all put a tremendous amount of effort into the process. Including setting the quotas, improving habitat, maintaining existing habitat, and establishing the season.

There is no good reason I can think of to not trust the recommendation and science behind the current season structure. Its solid, through and through.

I think it should also be kept in mind, that Wyoming is one of the few States that is very pro-active in managing all its wildlife. They adjust quotas, seasons, season timing, etc. etc. every year in response to science based data.

I again have 100% confidence in Wyoming biologists and Managers to make changes on the fly if necessary...
 
BuzzH,

You have completely hijacked the thread. Nobody here is questioning whether good science went into making these decisions. Nobody is questioning whether Wyoming can run a safe responsible grizzly hunt.

We are talking about what to expect regarding the spin that will be presented by the anti-hunting community and the non-hunting community and what to expect from the politicians and lawyers dealing with it. We are talking about methods and decisions we can implement now that can help us for the fight that everyone here seems to know is on the horizon.



Back on Track:

What is the sex breakdown of the harvest? How many of the 24 bears can be sows? Will it be public information if a sow is killed that she was nursing or not?
 
Buzz

Like I said, all the science I've seen supports these seasons and I have no doubt the 24 tag quota in Wyoming is a good biologically sound number. I just know there isn't an anti in the world (and many fence sitters) that are going to see it that way. Litigation is what I'm worried about, not the science.

I just wonder if easing into seasons on these hot button animals doesn't help the chances of actually being able to fully manage them at a state level sooner. It sure seemed to be the case with wolves and can't help but wonder if the same will be said for Grizzly Bears. Like I said before, time will tell.
 
2 sows can be killed in the monitoring area and only 10 male grizzlies can be killed in the monitoring area. The hunters in the monitoring area are actually only allowed out 2 at a time to prevent any chance of harvesting more than 2 sow grizzlies in the monitoring area.

Outside the area the other 12 tags will all be either sex tags with no limit on female or male mortality.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-18 AT 10:15AM (MST)[p]IdahoHntr,

The 7 lawsuits that have been filed so far, are NOT related to the hunting season or established quota. They're all over the delisting and filed against the USFWS.

Those lawsuits are going to fail as, once again, the science/data proves that delisting is warranted. That's what courts rule on, what can be proven, and what the science says.

I again agree with you that the wolves and how that played out gives me pause as well on the 24 quota. I think its fair to note that the hang-up with Wolves in Wyoming was much different, with the shoot on sight predator zone and all that mess. That said, I believe the State should move forward based on the science, data, and facts under the recommendation of the Department, Biologists, and Commission. If the quota was 6 bears, or 12 bears, or 24 bears...makes no difference to those that file lawsuits.

Plus, don't forget that hunting is only allowed if the previous years known mortality (from all causes) was not met for either total quota or the female sub-quota. I suspect there will be years that hunting will not be allowed at all.

The way the season is structured, with all the requirements made of those participating, as well as the female sub-quota, total quota...and season length. I would be surprised if 24 bears are killed. But, even if they are, the science shows the mortality is within the sideboards to maintain or grow the population.
 
Thanks for the quick reply Idahohntr. So what is the plan when a third sow is killed within the area? Also will it be public information of which sows killed were nursing or not?

Much Thanks
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-18 AT 10:25AM (MST)[p]Cant happen...in the mortality quota areas 1-6.

There are only 2 hunters in the field, at most, at one time. If a sow is killed, then only 1 hunter will be in the field at a time. Hunters are also going to be required to have a department issued harvest reporting device (assuming in-reach, spot, or the like) to immediately report harvest.

This hunt has been well thought out...and in spades.

Oh, and Chapter 68, google it.
 
Buzz.

The statement Tri made that I agreed with was that Wyoming should make it clear they expect to kill 24 bears. Why is this wrong?

Tri usual sidetrack aside, seems to me all the blah, blah, blah, muddies the water. Explaining the nuisance is fine for hunters, we get how hunting works with success rates. But to the public at large. Needing to cut 24 bears from the population seems a support of them being delisted. 24 means the population is far exceeding esa levels.
Is that thought process wrong?



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
hossblur,

Not entirely tracking your post...but I'll try to answer.

The quota can and will vary from year to year. I think anyone that expects the quota to stay at 24 bears, year after year is, not only wrong but living in fantasyland. Both the female and over-all quota is set by a calculation of a percentage of the total number of bears within determined population ranges. Those ranges and percentages were/are determined via the supporting data and the science to support the level (percentage wise) of female and over-all mortality.

The number of all known mortality is subtracted from the total allowable mortality...that is the number of bears that can be potentially hunted/killed each following year. If the female sub-quota or over-all mortality quota exceeds the percentage of allowable quota...NO SEASON the following year.

There isn't a "need" to cull 24 bears, only an opportunity to allow a level of harvest that does not negatively impact the over-all population via recruitment, or exceed allowable mortality.

Allowing grizzly hunting, also doesn't mean the bear populations are wayyy over recovery levels, only that limited hunting isn't going to put minimum recovery numbers at risk of re-listing.

Same argument for wolf seasons, as long as the minimum numbers are at, or exceed levels, to keep them off the list, no biological or legal reason to not allow hunting.

The other thing to keep in mind is that there is an MOU/A with both Montana and Idaho regarding share of harvest quota.
 
>2 sows can be killed in
>the monitoring area and only
>10 male grizzlies can be
>killed in the monitoring area.
>The hunters in the monitoring
>area are actually only allowed
>out 2 at a time
>to prevent any chance of
>harvesting more than 2 sow
>grizzlies in the monitoring area.
>
>
>Outside the area the other 12
>tags will all be either
>sex tags with no limit
>on female or male mortality.
>

Actually 12 males can be taken in the monitoring area.
 
So what does the state do when they shoot 3 sows in the area?

You need to answer this instead of saying it can't happen.

Think about it.

You are holding a hunt with a bunch of people who have never shot grizzly. Even very experienced grizzly guides screw up and tell clients to shoot.

Am I missing something? Are all the bears precaptured and collared?
 
The point being that I think we assume that because we speak "hunting" everyone does.

For the non consumptive public, they will hear that Grizzlies "just got delisted" and the hunters are trying to kill them.

The point I make is Wyoming fully expects there to be 24 dead bears, and they still won't be on ESA. We get the population and harvest statistics. The general population doesn't.

On wolves I felt we went too far into science talk.
In doing so it was too easy to distract folks.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>So what does the state do
>when they shoot 3 sows
>in the area?
>
>You need to answer this instead
>of saying it can't happen.
>
>
>Think about it.
>
>You are holding a hunt with
>a bunch of people who
>have never shot grizzly.
>Even very experienced grizzly guides
>screw up and tell clients
>to shoot.
>
>Am I missing something? Are
>all the bears precaptured and
>collared?

There are only 2 hunters allowed out in the field at a time in the monitoring area. If one of them shoots a sow then only 1 hunter will be allowed out in the field at a time. The way they have it set up it is literally impossible to shoot more than 2 sows in the monitoring area. If the first two hunters both shoot sows by accident or on purpose the hunt in the monitoring area is over for the season.

Try reading the proposal linked above before you ask the same question 3 times. In the monitoring area they went through great care to make sure that no more than 2 sow grizzlies are harvested within the monitoring area.
 
>The point being that I think
>we assume that because we
>speak "hunting" everyone does.
>
>For the non consumptive public, they
>will hear that Grizzlies "just
>got delisted" and the hunters
>are trying to kill them.
>
>
>The point I make is Wyoming
>fully expects there to be
>24 dead bears, and they
>still won't be on ESA.
> We get the population
>and harvest statistics. The
>general population doesn't.
>
>On wolves I felt we went
>too far into science talk.
>
>In doing so it was too
>easy to distract folks.
>
>
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

IMO, its going to be pretty tough to kill 24 bears, in particular when you consider that will likely be the maximum ever allowed to be hunted. Factor in that only 2 hunters at a time are allowed in the MA...and the season runs for only 3 months...I don't see it happening. Not to mention if the first bear is a sow, then its down to 1 hunter at a time.

Get a couple hunters that can only do the weekends...there may not be any shot before the season ends.

If I were to draw, I'd be pretty selective on the bear I shot, would be looking for a very mature boar and I'd hunt all season or until I found the right bear.

In the unit outside the MA, area 7, they just issue 12 total permits. I doubt success will be 100%...

I could be wrong, maybe 24 will be killed, but I think its going to be difficult.
 
I can't open the link wise ass. Maybe you could be helpful first and a trash talker second.


So two sows are killed everyone else's tag inside that zone gets cancelled?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-18 AT 03:20PM (MST)[p]>I can't open the link wise
>ass. Maybe you could
>be helpful first and a
>trash talker second.
>
>
>So two sows are killed everyone
>else's tag inside that zone
>gets cancelled?

They only issue 2 tags for the MA...not 3, not 4, not 12...TWO.

Those 2 hunters either hunt until they kill a bear, or until the season ends. If one kills a bear and its a boar, they call the next hunter on the list...still only 2 total hunters.

When the first sow is killed, then there is only one active hunter in the field at a time. If that remaining hunter kills a sow, season over...if a boar is killed, then another hunter is called. But, once the first sow is killed from that point forward only 1 hunter is in the field.

Harvest reporting is going to happen as I explained above, probably an in-reach or spot will be used.

There is NO way that 3 sows will be killed by hunters in the MA...no way.
 
>That is not what the proposal
>states:
>
>https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/May_CH-68_Draft-2-28-18-9.pdf
>
>Check out section section 6 points
>"b" and "d".
>
>That part doesn't make much sense
>to me as I feel
>like they are requiring that
>two of the bears killed
>are sows. With the way
>the rules are set up
>in the proposal above I
>think it would actually be
>impossible to ever kill more
>than 11 bears in the
>the monitoring area.

Yes, that the way it reads to me, too.
 
>That's the problem. Somebody else
>stated above there were 12
>tags in the monitoring area.
>

Quota of 12, but only 2 tags issued at one time from a priority ranking list.

You don't purchase the tag until you're called and accept the hunt.

Once you accept, you have 10 days to purchase the tag.

The link provided or look up Chapter 68 regs...its all there.
 
Buzz

You are definitely right. It is actually IMPOSSIBLE to kill 24 bears because either the 10 males quota will be reached or the 2 female quota will be reached before they kill 12 bears in the MA. So the actual total possible is only 23. The most they could kill in the MA with the rules as they are is 11 and that only if every person kills bears in quick succession without killing any females till 7 or 8 of the tags have already been filled. Think about it. The best they could do is have 9 boars killed and 1 sow with only 1 hunter left out there who will end the season once he kills a bear whether it is a boar or a sow.

Honestly though, I really see no more than 7 or 8 bears getting killed total in the MA and that would still be with things going pretty well.

I also see what Hoss is saying about how things are going to be coming from the other side. It will definitely be portrayed (and already has been) that Wyoming is killing 24 grizzlies even though that isn't going to be the case.
 
I Ain't Got a Bear Pic!

But the Tree-Huggin DEMO LIMP WRISTED ANTI-GUNNING BEAR HUGGERS should get the Picture!


91967hhwolf.jpg









It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
Two questions. First is it made public whether sows killed were nursing or not? Second, are there any meat recovery requirements for harvested grizzlies?
 

Similar threads

N
Western Hunt Expo. What is really going on?
2 3
Replies
202
Views
9k
Zim
Zim
ICMDEER
Sleeping in a Pickup
2
Replies
105
Views
4k
Rie bread
Rie bread
BrianID
Thoughts on new Special license fees
2
Replies
107
Views
4k
BuzzH
BuzzH

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20231022_055942_Photos.jpg
IMG_1161.png
ninoripepi80102-2.jpg
_AAX6014-Edit.jpg
IMG_0043.jpg
087B1A45-AC86-4961-8852-87AF3C5ABF9B.jpeg
FB_IMG_1639847126641.jpg
B70C8FE9-4E84-4AAA-920E-A60097E06E08.jpeg
59A30748-E38F-4E64-B0F2-0508C5D38AEB.jpeg
64.MP4
077.jpeg
sunset.jpg
Back
Top Bottom