Save The Yellowstone Grizzly

Please consider signing the petition to stop the removal of the Yellowstone Grizzly from the Endangered Species Act.
Delisting may trigger trophy hunting of grizzlies in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, a bloodbath the great bear may not survive. 
We need 91,860 more signatures by Sept. 22

http://www.savetheyellowstonegrizzly.org

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/p…/save-yellowstone-grizzly

Yes, modern day American hunters are well known for wiping out entire species of animal that are considered game animals. Oh wait, can you name even ONE game animal that has become extinct in the last 50 years due to reckless hunting by licensed hunters? I think not.

Let the flames begin.

I signed the petition.............and the only reason I knew about it was because I saw it here, in your post.........thanks!

Thank you Ron.

I signed it and also posted the petition on my Facebook account with a comment.

I support hunting but despise trophy hunting and have no respect for trophy hunters.  Whenever I think of trophy hunting of large brown bears I am reminded of that picture (that I am unable to find for this post) of a man in a business suit, reading the Wall Street Journal with a large brown bear, mounted on a pedestal behind him. The whole thing is disgusting.  

Trophy hunting is 100% about big money and ego.   

Here are some comments by the Center for Biological Diversity on the proposed delisting of the Yellowstone Grizzly.

There is no question that delisting will trigger trophy hunting. 

You might be happy to know that the CBD has already filed a law suit against one of those grizzly states out there (Montana?) that is rushing to cash in on a grizzly hunt.   

It ain't over till its over; and it ain't over!

Did I mention that I love the CBD ?  

dougc wrote:Yes, modern day American hunters are well known for wiping out entire species of animal that are considered game animals. Oh wait, can you name even ONE game animal that has become extinct in the last 50 years due to reckless hunting by licensed hunters? I think not.

Let the flames begin.

Hunters were still shooting the few remaining wolves in the US in the 60's. The ESA was enacted in 1973 and that's the primary reason why animals have no longer been driven extinct in this country by game hunters. But trophy hunting can have pronounced impacts on populations, and particularly vulnerable species with limited available range, such as the Grizzlies in the lower 48. Were trophy hunting of the polar bear not banned under the MMPA, we could in all probability add them to the list. 

On the other hand, can you name even one game animal that benefitted in the last 50 years (or ever) due to hunting by trophy hunters? Can you suggest how trophy hunting of a vulnerable species like the grizzly bear, now reduced to living in something like 1% of its former range (in the Lower 48) might benefit anyone or anything other than the ego of someone wanting a rug or a wall hanger? 

walkinman wrote:

dougc wrote:Yes, modern day American hunters are well known for wiping out entire species of animal that are considered game animals. Oh wait, can you name even ONE game animal that has become extinct in the last 50 years due to reckless hunting by licensed hunters? I think not.

Let the flames begin.

Hunters were still shooting the few remaining wolves in the US in the 60's. The ESA was enacted in 1973 and that's the primary reason why animals have no longer been driven extinct in this country by game hunters. But trophy hunting can have pronounced impacts on populations, and particularly vulnerable species with limited available range, such as the Grizzlies in the lower 48. Were trophy hunting of the polar bear not banned under the MMPA, we could in all probability add them to the list. 

On the other hand, can you name even one game animal that benefitted in the last 50 years (or ever) due to hunting by trophy hunters? Can you suggest how trophy hunting of a vulnerable species like the grizzly bear, now reduced to living in something like 1% of its former range (in the Lower 48) might benefit anyone or anything other than the ego of someone wanting a rug or a wall hanger? 

I am anti hunting but lets give the guys a break...through licence fees and gun and ammo taxes, Mountain goats, Elk, Columbia White tail deer, and Sheep  extinct because of hunting are now roaming Oregon's mountains again.  Of course, the trophy hunters target the fittest of said species and constantly weaken the gene pool.

Mike in O wrote:I am anti hunting but lets give the guys a break...through licence fees and gun and ammo taxes, Mountain goats, Elk, Columbia White tail deer, and Sheep  extinct because of hunting are now roaming Oregon's mountains again.  Of course, the trophy hunters target the fittest of said species and constantly weaken the gene pool.

Mike
I'm not anti-hunting at all. I have two freezers full of moose meat right now I just got because some hunter shot an illegal moose, and and now I'm set for the winter. LOL

What I am is anti misguided commentary.  

Realize thought the outdated argument about revenue raised from the Pittman Robertson Act doesn't quite hold the same water it once did, with ever decreasing revenues coming in.

Please don't forget to sign the petition and forward to all your friends, less than 2 days remain to get 77,000 signatures.

This whole thing is crazy.  It makes no sense.  It has to stink right at the top of the USFWS.  I posted again on Facebook just now.   So are you saying that from the time you first posted this until just now......we only got 20,000 signatures?  Personally, I am tired of trying to motivate people to participate in anything to do with wildlife conservation issues.  How many people commented here?  Does that tell you anything?

I have to believe that the CBD is going to sue the h-ll out of the government.  That is what I want.   And I keep saying that that is exactly what is necessary today.

People just do not care enough!  There are federal wildlife conservation laws that must be upheld, but increasingly, it takes a law suit to make sure they are enforced.

It ain't over till its over, and it ain't over.

I sat in a court room and listened to a CBD lawyer argue her case...it wasn't pretty. The judge wouldn't let her speak because she had already made up her mind; the moral of the story is sueing doesn't always have good outcomes.

walkinman wrote:

dougc wrote:Yes, modern day American hunters are well known for wiping out entire species of animal that are considered game animals. Oh wait, can you name even ONE game animal that has become extinct in the last 50 years due to reckless hunting by licensed hunters? I think not.

Let the flames begin.

Hunters were still shooting the few remaining wolves in the US in the 60's. The ESA was enacted in 1973 and that's the primary reason why animals have no longer been driven extinct in this country by game hunters. But trophy hunting can have pronounced impacts on populations, and particularly vulnerable species with limited available range, such as the Grizzlies in the lower 48. Were trophy hunting of the polar bear not banned under the MMPA, we could in all probability add them to the list. 

On the other hand, can you name even one game animal that benefitted in the last 50 years (or ever) due to hunting by trophy hunters? Can you suggest how trophy hunting of a vulnerable species like the grizzly bear, now reduced to living in something like 1% of its former range (in the Lower 48) might benefit anyone or anything other than the ego of someone wanting a rug or a wall hanger? 

Ever heard of Ducks Unlimited? It's funded by hunters.

Kindly define "Trophy" hunting as opposed to any other type of hunting. Are some animals lives worth more than others simply because they are bigger, harder to hunt, etc.? A large Whitetail buck that scores 160 B&C or higher is considered a trophy. Does this make a buck that scores 120 a non "Trophy" animal that it's okay to shoot because he doesn't score as high???? And please don't give me the old song and dance that so called "Trophy" hunters only take the hides, antlers etc. and leave the meat to rot. This does happen but when it does, it is usually a poacher which hunters hate far more than non hunters. In many places the meat, if not taken by the hunter, is used by locals or is donated to programs like Hunters for the Hungry. Yes, there are some unethical hunters, just as their are unethical photographers. Also, just because a hunter can afford to spend more on a hunt does not demonize them simply because they have more money. I can't afford an 800mm lens but I don't think those who can are evil people. 

I have no love for the federal government but the choices they have made thus far, concerning removing an animal from the endangered species list, have not resulted in those animals being hunted to extinction. If numbers fall too low, they are put back on the list.

Doug

I am trying to respond to you but I keep getting interrupted with things where I am physically at. Be right back in a bit.

I am glad you are talking.

Kindly define "Trophy" hunting as opposed to any other type of hunting. Are some animals lives worth more than others simply because they are bigger, harder to hunt, etc.?

That is a good question.   It shows something that you would like explained.  No, I agree; i.e. it is not simply because they are bigger or harder to hunt.

A large Whitetail buck that scores 160 B&C or higher is considered a trophy. Does this make a buck that scores 120 a non "Trophy" animal that it's okay to shoot because he doesn't score as high???? And please don't give me the old song and dance that so called "Trophy" hunters only take the hides, antlers etc. and leave the meat to rot. This does happen but when it does, it is usually a poacher which hunters hate far more than non hunters.

I agree.  I also agree that for the most part.......hunters are proud about policing themselves for poaching or non-sportsmanlike practices.  

In many places the meat, if not taken by the hunter, is used by locals or is donated to programs like Hunters for the Hungry. 

You are right and all those programs (under different names) are good for PR and the utilization of the meat.   This practice is widespread among wildlife agencies..   I know because I have been involved with all of this in the past as a biologist.

Yes, there are some unethical hunters, just as their are unethical photographers. Also, just because a hunter can afford to spend more on a hunt does not demonize them simply because they have more money. I can't afford an 800mm lens but I don't think those who can are evil people. 

And I can't disagree with this either.  I agree with your analogy.

I have no love for the federal government but the choices they have made thus far, concerning removing an animal from the endangered species list, have not resulted in those animals being hunted to extinction. If numbers fall too low, they are put back on the list.

So what is it that we are outraged over? I cannot speak for everyone.  But I can try to explain how it is that I feel.  I do not have the time now, to get through that.  But I will put something together soon, unless one of us already has something more to say about it.

I will get back to here with it.     

Well, I can take stab at the trophy hunting question.
Trophy hunters (and let me say that I am not anti-hunting) by definition pursue the biggest and the best conditioned animals. A trophy hunter will pass up the smaller deer that might be better eating and instead wait for the chance to take the bigger animal with the best features, such as antlers, horns, manes etc.
The problem that some people have with trophy hunting is that the practice removes the best genes from the population, theoretically weakening the population as a whole. This goes directly against the concept of Natural Selection and evolution that would otherwise retain the biggest and best animals on the landscape.
I am not a hunter but I am a wildlife photographer. I would much rather be photographing an impressively big deer with large antlers than a smaller doe or a young buck that has little chance of living long enough to reach the stage in its life of becoming a "big buck."

Paul

Yes, I know I have not gotten back with my response.  It has been quite complex and I am deciding now to tell you the links and if you choose....you can google them.

1.  USFWS Federal Register announcement of intention to delist the Yellowstone Grizzly

2.  Center for Biological Diversity response to USFWS intentions to delist.  

The late Stephen Ambrose is considered my many to be America's most prolific and exciting historian.  

3.  Everyone who loves the wilderness and American history must read Stephen Ambrose's popular work(s) on Lewis and Clark's 1803 expedition.  Lewis was President Thomas Jefferson's secretary at the time.  He was given what is arguably the greatest American adventure ever.  I think so.  My point?  

The Yellowstone Grizzly is the grizzly of American history.  Encounters with this grizzly are well-documented in William Clark's diary for all of you to read in Stephan Ambrose works. 

Wildlife agencies tell you what they want you to think, not necessarily the true facts.  I know; I worked for 2 state wildlife agencies and then one in the fed system.  

Hunting this bear is not the same as all other big game hunting.  Although it is an omnivore, this bear is included among the apex predators, referring to the position it occupies at the top of its ecosystem's energy web.  All energy is manufactured at the base of all ecosystems in the biosphere.   The higher you go, the less energy there is to live on.  Until the very top, there is none.   These animals have it so hard already.  They require enormous home ranges just to survive and they cannot survive winter without hibernation.   They have been taken from, gunned down and otherwise ERADICATED over the last 150 to 200 years.  Wherever man encountered this bear, man killed the bear.  It is that simple and always that way.  The State of California wiped out their last grizzly I think around 1924.  Today, they proudly fly an image of it on their state flag.  How sick!  How two-faced!

Many hunters feel that the grizzly bear is competing with them for their elk.  Yes, that is the truth.  That is sick too.  All these hunters are decedents of the Europeans who invaded this country and eradicated the American aborigine.  European man has a very, very poor record when it comes to stewardship of nature.  There is no argument here.   Just recently, NATGEO aired a special on the elk of Yellowstone.  Their pop was mysteriously declining.  The PhD did his research; they drew blood and analyzed it and they crunched their numbers.  In the end, the mysterious decline was due to fawn loss to spring grizzly bears.  The way I took took the narration is that the grizzly bears were a problem.  I had to cut the show short.  Did anyone see that show? Did I take it right?

YOU HUNTERS WILL BE FORCED TO BACK OFF ON YOUR CLAIMS THAT THESE BEARS ARE TAKING YOUR ELK.  We will not tolerate this!  I am getting fed up with this attitude.  It is there alright.  And it is wrong.

Look at the Center for Biological Diversities document (#2).  Look at the historical range of the Yellowstone Grizzly....compared to its current range.  Does that look like recovery?  The heck it does!   

The USFWS has cooked up a Recovery Plan for this grizzly that looks good to the average Wildlife Biologist.  But it is arrived at by plugging in and math-crunching a group of  life history dynamics.  It does not make sense to anyone with common sense. Why?  How can the Yellowstone Grizzly be recovered when it occupies a tiny remnant of its former range? And now you plan to delist it, knowing that the grizzly states are going to have hunting seasons on these bears now.     

Gene pool...what?:  Then they say that if it is discovered that the Yellowstone Grizzlies are inbreeding, that Montana, Wyoming or Idaho will capture one of their bears and it will be brought into Yellowstone.  Give me a break! You should not have to do this in the first place!

The more I write about this, the angrier I get.  

Finally,  YES, this type of trophy hunting must be abolished permanently.  And it will be.  

That is the reason for the law suit.  Hunting these American grizzly bears is about money and ego and it is done to a species that should not have to sustain it.  IMO, at this time in history, we must abolish the hunting of any American grizzly bear.   It is either that or lose them.    There are no other options.    These bears have a very low reproductive potential and their current ranges (where man ACCEPTS them!!) is a tiny remnant of their historical range.  Morality is a part of any wildlife dynamics.  Isn't it common sense?:   When a population of any wildlife species gets this low, it is susceptible to any environmental factors that are yet unforeseen, like a heretofore unknown disease.   Then what do you do?

The service has the public comment period open again till October 7.  

This is the best I can now.   I also have other things to take care of.  What do you say? 

 

If you are interested, open this link, look at the map.....and then come to your own conclusion on whether this grizzly bear should be taken off the Endangered Species list and allowed to be hunted.

Here is an example of what I have been saying whenever cattlemen complain about bears:

I am watching a program right now.....Alaska:  The Last Frontier.

These two guys are standing over the carcass of one of their cattle.  It was killed by a bear.  One of them says "Every year there's more and more of them bears.  It's a problem."

My point:  The cattlemen have been there for a few years to a few decades, while the bears have been there millennia to eons.  

 

The NATGEO program showed how biologists were able to prove that the mysterious dramatic population decline of elk in recent years was not due to wolf reintroduction which was the speculation, but the elk population decline was due to fawn depredation by grizzlys. BUT that grizzly behavior was caused by the absence of cutthroat trout, a major food source for bears, because the trout have been out competed by steelhead. The steelhead were released illegally by humans into Lake Yellowstone and had the effect of wiping out a major food source for the bears making them have to seek alternate sources of protein in spring, elk fawns. Speculation about who released the bigger steelhead into the lake center on recreational fishermen and fishing guides in the region.

Paul