More griz info

At least the non-resident license price is reasonable......ha ha ha......(eye roll)

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!

Doesn't matter if it was $1 or $10,000 for the tag, way it is written we can't draw outside the main zone and all the residents get to hunt first with 2 NRs hunting last and only if the female 2 bear quota hasn't been met...this is a resident only hunt this year. Maybe it will change down the road if its still going.

That's it! I'm moving, Wyoming residents have it way to good as far as hunting goes. Can?t take it anymore. By the way I'm officially changing my stance on residents having to draw or pick a region for deer. Screw that, leave it how it is?

After reviewing the proposed regs & hunt areas, I will be very surprised if more than 5 or 6 grizzlies total are harvested this fall from both the monitoring area and Unit 7, outside the monitoring area.

Theoretically, the first 2 hunters could take most of the fall to harvest (Some hunters will be very picky). There should be some kind of limitation on the hunting time ( 2-3 weeks?) And if one hunter kills a sow, then only 1 hunter is allowed in the field. Two sows killed stops the hunt ( in monitoring zone). Also, as the article was alluding to, if a bunch of non-hunters applied and 2 were selected to hunt, they could "hunt" the whole season & no griz would be harvested in the core/monitoring zone.

Outside the monitoring area, which in reviewing the map in G&F Chapter 67, Appendix I, is well outside the known grizzly habitat area. I bet that no more than 1 bear will be harvested in Unit 7 even if the hunters have all fall to hunt. I've hunted Western Wyo for decades and have never seen a griz outside the monitoring area. Have seen quite a few inside the monitoring zone though.

Glad to see a hunt, but to say that up to 24 bears could be harvested is quite a bit of a stretch IMHO.
Don

IMHO this is one area that the G&F has screwed the pooch the way they have set things up. First off, if the antis can't stop the hunt completely like they are trying to, they can flood the state with applications since the license fee doesn't have to be paid up front. They have the money to spend a lot entering their own people to eliminate the hunt completely if one or more of their people would get drawn even if they lose in court. The other thing that sucks is the way they are only going to allow two people at a time to hunt the monitoring area with no maximum number of days to get it done to let more people hunt, so even if hunters draw the tags and the hunt proceeds the first two can hunt as long as they want to before filling a tag and everyone else with a tag can just twiddle their thumbs. Not too smart a way of setting things up IMHO!

I'm sure asking for 24 bears to be harvested they know the anti people will be fighting and settle for smaller number
Honestly we can afford to double or triple that but that will never happen. I see more griz then elk while horn hunting recently...

I do know i wont waste my time to apply. Seems like a pain for the whole process

The anti-hunt side won't settle for one dead bear. This will be in court before any hunt takes place this fall.

>The anti-hunt side won't settle for
>one dead bear. This will
>be in court before any
>hunt takes place this fall.
>


Ya most likely. The only dead ones we will get is the ones that keep eating people

I may have missed it in there somewhere, but if the hunt is shut down after a few bears are harvested would the remaining tag holders get a refund for their licenses since they were never allowed to set foot in the field?

LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-18 AT 06:58PM (MST)[p]>IMHO this is one area that
>the G&F has screwed the
>pooch the way they have
>set things up. First
>off, if the antis can't
>stop the hunt completely like
>they are trying to, they
>can flood the state with
>applications since the license fee
>doesn't have to be paid
>up front. They have
>the money to spend a
>lot entering their own people
> to eliminate the hunt
>completely if one or more
>of their people would get
>drawn even if they lose
>in court. The other
>thing that sucks is the
>way they are only going
>to allow two people at
>a time to hunt the
>monitoring area with no maximum
>number of days to get
>it done to let more
>people hunt, so even if
>hunters draw the tags and
>the hunt proceeds the first
>two can hunt as long
>as they want to before
>filling a tag and everyone
>else with a tag can
>just twiddle their thumbs.
>Not too smart a way
>of setting things up IMHO!
>

Topgun:

You said, ...."so even if hunters draw the tags and the hunt proceeds the first two can hunt as long as they want to before filling a tag and everyone else with a tag can just twiddle their thumbs."

Outside the DMA (Hunt Area 7) there will be a draw and 12 licenses will be issued (9 to residents and 3 to nonresidents).
Those hunters can hunt until they harvest a bear or the season ends, whichever comes first.

In the DMA (Hunt Areas 1-6) there won't be "everyone else with a tag" while the first two hunters are hunting. A person will not purchase a license until after they are called and they will not be called until there is an opportunity as per the proposed regulations, which you have explained to several.

How would you have set up the season structure?

ClearCreek

Actually after reading closer how it was set up I will have to retract my statement that they screwed the pooch. By only selling tags to the top two on the list and then not selling another tag until a tag is filled with a bear of known sex there is no way they will take more than 2 sows or 10 boars in the monitoring area. The only thing I would have done different is give the persons that are drawn for a tag a time limit to hunt and if they don't fill their tags in that time frame then the next person on the list is allowed to hunt for the same length of time until they fill it. That would allow more people to get in on the hunt, as well as get more money that is needed by the G&F to operate the hunt and still ensure that the 2 sow 10 boar mortality limit is not exceeded. The way it is now the top two people could take the entire season to fill their tag and nobody else on the list will even get into the field.

>I may have missed it in
>there somewhere, but if the
>hunt is shut down after
>a few bears are harvested
>would the remaining tag holders
>get a refund for their
>licenses since they were never
>allowed to set foot in
>the field?


H-t-W:

I think people are confusing the issue on this.

In GB Hunt Area 7 there will be 12 licenses issued (9 to residents and 3 to nonresidents). They will pay the license fee and be allowed to hunt until they harvest a bear or the season end, whichever occurs first. There is no waiting list in this hunt area.

In GB Hunt Areas 1-6 (the area within the Demographic Monitoring Area, the DMA) two lists of hunters (one resident, one nonresident) that submit applications will be produced with a number assigned to each hunter. The first two people on the resident list will be called and offered an opportunity to purchase a license; which they will have 10 days to do. They start hunting and depending on the sex of the first bear killed another hunter (a resident) may be called. If the first bear killed is a female there will not be a third person called until the hunter in the field harvests a bear (the reason is only 2 females can be killed and if the hunter in the field, i.e., the second hunter, kills a female, the hunt is over in the DMA).

If the first hunter to harvest a bear kills a male, then a third hunter (a resident) will be called. At this point there will be two hunters in the field. If one of the two in the field kills a female a fourth hunter (a nonresident) will not be called as the other hunter in the field could kill a female and the hunt would be over. If the second bear killed is a male the nonresident would be called.

The hunt will continue like this with only one or two hunters in the field at a time so no more than two females can be killed.

The first three hunters issued a license will be residents, then the fourth hunter will be a nonresident; then the next three (hunters five, six and seven) will residents. The eighth will be a nonresident. And so on until the female or male limits are reached or the season ends.

OK, I will admit it does sound a little confusing.

ClearCreek

LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-18 AT 09:09PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-18 AT 09:03?PM (MST)

I think they could have made a lot more money if they would have changed the prices. For example make it 50 bucks nonrefundable to apply. Have the resident tags cost around 300 bucks or so and the non-resident tags around a thousand bucks or so. They would have got many many more applicants and they could have kept the $50 non-refundable fee. At the same time you don't have to be rich to draw and the prices are a lot more reasonable. Oh yeah, one more thing, we could always get rid of that BS Wilderness law so the non residents don't have to pay to hunt public land. Get rid of that law and lower the prices and they would have money pouring in! WYOGA is probably behind the scenes pulling the strings on everything. No wonder the non-resident tags are six Grand. People with that kind of money will pay a guide no problem.

jm77 has about got this right. Court battles are on the horizon. There is too much money to be plucked from the eco-elite tree to allow this opportunity to die down. With a little organization, the eco-elites could buy up thousands of tag opportunities to kill a grizzly bear. I wonder how many of them have passed hunter safety courses before applying? Maybe as a prerequisite to applying for a grizzly tag, they should be required to produce the hunter safety certificate. It might dissuade a few and it wouldn't hurt them a bit to take the class.

Read the comment to the Cody enterprise article that nfh posted. Dewey is a notorious gadfly from the local area who knows very little about the subject. I have watched him at both wolf and grizzly bear meetings over the years. You should see the reaction of G&F employees when he opens his mouth. I always wondered what he did for a living. Reading his comments, give you an idea of what is out there in the eco-elite world.

Only time will tell how this plays out. I laugh when the distinction is made between female and male grizzly bears.There is one bear expert at G&F that couldn't tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly. Every person who draws the tag, will need a special spotting scope to zoom in on the back end of every grizzly bear. If you wonder about the sex of a grizzly bear, you need to look at some obvious characteristics and surroundings. If the bear is pissy, it is likely a female. If it has an entourage of other bears, it is likely a female. When a bear enters the tent you are sleeping in, ask it to back in so you can confirm what sex it is before firing.

I could provide those who draw the tag with the location of various drainages where a large male grizzly lives. I have a few named. There is "Old Backscratcher" on the North Fork. He is always rubbing his back on a tree when I see him. I think he has a dry skin problem. There is another big boar on the Sunlight side that I call "Stevie Wonder". He is always walking right up on me, but hauls butt when you yell at him. His hearing is good but his eyesight sucks. I prefer to hunt the drainages with boars, because I seldom see a pissy female or cubs in those areas. The boars have usually dined on them.

just sayin...mh

LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-18 AT 07:29AM (MST)[p]I just read the link in Michael's post and one concern expressed at that meeting is one I've heard before. That is that many antis will flood the application process hoping to get high up on the list and then not hunt if it gets to them. The statement in response by this G&F guy Thompson sure didn't sound too good to me: Moderator Dan Thompson, head of the large carnivore division in Lander, sought to head off emotional statements by discouraging ?grandstanding.? What in the heck does he mean by that when what was mentioned is an honest, up front comment on what the antis may try if the court rules that the USFWS delisting will stay in effect and the hunt will go on as scheduled.

Nothing against grizzly bears or grizzly bear hunters, have at it, but I would only shoot a grizzly bear if they paid ME $6,000.