I think this is a good idea. I don't have any desire to hunt a grizzly myself, but it is an important tool that the state needs to manage the population. Including some directed hunting allows for some hunting opportunity on specific animals that are likely to have to be removed anyway. I think there could actually be two quotas- one that is a traditional hunt like was planned this year, and another for "3 strikes" type bears, not saying 3 chances is the magic number. These bears that start down the fairly predictable path of being moved only to come back to where they got in trouble, or just make trouble in their new home get marked (red ear tag, whatever). Another allocation of tags for this type of hunt. Description of bear, where most recently released info given to hunters. I think it could be a great management tool without feeling like a canned/non fair-chase hunt. Looking for a specific bear in a drainage or area isn't exactly a slam dunk.
>I have never been to Alaska
>and can't personally make the
>comparison. However, I am inclined
>to believe what jm77 is
>saying. He is spot on
>when he states the grizzly
>bears in Wyoming are inclined
>to come to gun shots.
>They do this frequently and
>the result can be a
>little frightening. I lived in
>North Idaho with grizzly bears
>for many years. The bears
>in Wyoming are a lot
>more aggressive than those bears
>ever were.
>
>I don't think the Montana Federal
>District Judge in Montana gave
>a rat's a** about bear
>attacks, environmental carrying capacity or
>predator/prey models in his ruling.
>His ruling was inevitable based
>on his background, party affiliation
>and who appointed him. To
>suggest that federal judges in
>this country don't choose an
>outcome and try to come
>out with a rationale for
>doing so is na?ve at
>best. Just like Judge Malloy
>and Judge Amy Berman wanted
>to be the darlings of
>the eco-elites so does Judge
>Christensen. It is the closest
>they ever become to being
>a "rock star". I predict
>his decision will be overturned
>in the future. When you
>review the last D.C. Circuit
>Court of Appeals decision (which
>was not appealed), on the
>wolf in Wyoming, it established
>a clear precedent about what
>the role of federal district
>judges is in ESA cases.
>Judge Christensen ignored that precedent.
>
>
>The decision of the federal judge
>on the grizzly bear issue
>has resulted in way more
>grizzly bears being destroyed in
>Wyoming in 2018. The state
>may not be technically in
>charge right now, but the
>USFWS is deferring all decisions
>and action to the State
>of Wyoming. The lady running
>the grizzly bear program for
>the USFWS is allowing G&F
>to destroy problem bears. Her
>marching orders come from Secretary
>Ryan Zinke and she knows
>it.
>
>A few months ago, I made
>a post about what I
>was told when a couple
>of G&F employees were trapping
>bears in Sunlight/Crandall this year.
>They reached their trapping goal
>weeks early. They advised me
>that the bears they were
>trapping were starting to stunt
>out and starve. They said
>that many of the boars
>were in tough shape from
>fighting. They also told me
>that this is the first
>time they have not trapped
>a single black bear. That
>would certainly indicate that the
>carrying capacity of the area
>had been reached.
>
>My biggest complaint with Wyoming G&F
>is their continued underestimating of
>the actual population of grizzly
>bears in the area. They
>admit that they are doing
>this. It is not helping
>the situation.
>
>I don't care if there is
>ever a hunt. I do
>care that state management is
>returned to Wyoming. With or
>without hunting, they will get
>rid of the problem bears
>that plague the area. This
>will make hunters, fisherman and
>others living close to the
>bears much safer. If a
>hunt is back in play,
>I would like to see
>G&F employees direct each individual
>hunt. That doesn't sound like
>fair chase, but I think
>it would avoid the problems
>associated with the hunts. Put
>a bear on the "hit
>list" and show the hunter
>where that bear is.
>
>just sayin...mh
>
>