I hope this doesn't happen.

[williamranks]

The forest service closed another hiking trail because of black bears, the drought is causing them to move to new areas.
This would make it a lot worse.
http://www.verdenews.com/main.asp?Secti ... leID=60971

[BigSky56]

Bears are going to do what bears do look for food, last week my wife was about a 1/2 mile from our place found a woman running down the road stopped to see if she needed help woman said she had been attacked by a bear and had kicked it in the nose and hit it with a stick it ran off probably was a sow with cubs as it didnt pursue Ive have told this woman in the past that we have 2 kind of bears, cats, wolves and moose to get a shooter she told my wife she had gotten a pistol but it is inconvenient for hip carry. bet she carries from now on. not far from where this happened a week earlier a cat came in and took a ranchers dog off the porch killed and ate em in the pasture neighbor & I sorted out that problem that afternoon, when it comes to dealing with predators gratuitous violence works best.
Never underestimate the CBD they have sued and won most their cases such as the 4 dams on the colombia river and of the 4 2 have been breached they are suing to have the koocanusa dam breached all in the name of ESAct. never mind the fact that the no fish can get up past the falls and the dam is 20 miles above the falls. They are for pre 1804 ecosystems. danny

[Malamute]

The linked story is misleading and wrong regarding grizzly numbers. If this story is the CBD normal modus operandi, then they lied, pure and simple. It makes it sound like they are in imminent danger of going extinct if SOMETHING ISNT DONE! The numbers are on the low side, even for the lower 48, they conveniently forget to mention that there's 30,000 or more in Alaska, 25,000 in Canada, and many many more in Russia and other places.

With the number of people that frequent the back country in the Southwest, I question whether its a good idea to bring grizzlies back there, after the circus that recovery has been in the Northern Rockies. On the other hand, we definitely have plenty of excess bears if they want to take some off our hands. There are more bears than we have good country for them now. The official numbers are widely scoffed at as being low. The result is that more bears have more stress trying to make a living, and are in contact with people more. Problems ensue. Sounds like a great way to liven up the outdoors experience in the Southwest.

[7.62 Precision]

This is actually a great idea.

Many of those areas are desert that is a tough habitat for larger mammals, making it a struggle for a predator like a bear to survive, while limited availability of water makes it hard for prey species to avoid predators, so it is a delicate balance for all involved.

Fortunately, though, considerate ranchers and dairy farmers have provided large numbers of fat, easy to capture cattle that can support an even larger population of bears than could naturally be supported in these areas.

It will all work out fine for everyone.

[Malamute]

^^^ yeah, they make it real easy to recover damages when woofs and bears eat cows. The ranchers near me are just tickled pink at how the critera changed and they get to absorb more losses.

[BigSky56]

the 48 number is low for the cabinet yaak area they just did a hair snagging operation last fall waiting for the count to come in well see. danny

[BrentD]

it would make for some awesome bear hunting one day.

[Dave B]

I think the math would be interesting if hunting follows:
Grizzly bear in AZ + .348Win = A bear skin on my wall.

Dave B

[Blaine]

Washington's Wet Side is gaining quite the black bear population. They outlawed bait, and dogs many moons ago. NOW (rolling eyes) when an area gets a bear problem, they hire contractors with bait and dogs to thin them out. Just think of all the hunters that would pay good money to do that, but the DumbAzz Fish and Wildlife PAYS to have it done

[BrentD]

I think the math would be interesting if hunting follows:
Grizzly bear in AZ + .348Win = A bear skin on my wall.

Dave B

I think $ fits into that equation somewhere, and probably a meaty sized coefficient in front of it too...

I'm not at all opposed to bears on the Mogollon Rim. They may get there on their own eventually anyway.

[7.62 Precision]

Problem is that hunting never follows and even self-defense becomes a nightmare. Forget protecting livestock.

The agencies involved in this stuff are so anti-hunting that if they needed to be culled they would hire people to shoot them and leave them to rot before they would be in favor of allowing them to be hunted.

They would rather pay ranchers for every cow lost than lose a bear. The truth is, they don't pay enough to make it worth loosing cattle, even if they pay the correct sale price of a cow, there is more worth in a herd to the rancher than just the sale value of each animal, when you consider time and money investment in breeding stock, the fact that replacing a cow usually means another year before you get a calf from that one, etc.

I like bears, and would not want to see the gone from Alaska. Alaska is not Arizona. Up here there is plenty of land and plenty of food and plenty of water for them.

In Arizona, there is plenty of land, but they will move into the cities and onto ranches and farms to find food and water. Don't even try to tell me that they will stay out in the hot, sparse desert when there are dumpsters in town, water tanks in feed lots, and irrigation in the fields.

[BrentD]

Problem is that hunting never follows and even self-defense becomes a nightmare. Forget protecting livestock.

Baloney. Wolves are being hunted all over the place now. Bear self defense is hardly a nightmare, at least not of the sort you imply. Livestock is both protected and compensated. In some areas at MANY MULTIPLES of the value of the animal. These are all facts. But somehow forums like this one choose to deny them.

I'll make a wager that grizzlies will be hunted in the lower 48 inside of 5 yrs from today. $100. Any takers? Only fools would take that bet.




[uote]The agencies involved in this stuff are so anti-hunting that if they needed to be culled they would hire people to shoot them and leave them to rot before they would be in favor of allowing them to be hunted.[/quote]

That is also just more bull. I actually HUNT with guys in those agencies. I actually KNOW what they think. I don't speculate as an armchair internet "expert"

They would rather pay ranchers for every cow lost than lose a bear. The truth is, they don't pay enough to make it worth loosing cattle, even if they pay the correct sale price of a cow, there is more worth in a herd to the rancher than just the sale value of each animal, when you consider time and money investment in breeding stock, the fact that replacing a cow usually means another year before you get a calf from that one, etc.

I like bears, and would not want to see the gone from Alaska. Alaska is not Arizona. Up here there is plenty of land and plenty of food and plenty of water for them.

In Arizona, there is plenty of land, but they will move into the cities and onto ranches and farms to find food and water. Don't even try to tell me that they will stay out in the hot, sparse desert when there are dumpsters in town, water tanks in feed lots, and irrigation in the fields.

Again. BS. It's really not worth my time trying to change peoples minds on these boards, but the facts are simply not with you. As it has become a political issue, there is no room for facts, only dogma and diatribe. I find it terrible sad and I see in it the end of hunting, simply because our side is so mired in our own self pity that we can't get out and do anything constructive.

[BigSky56]

Brent bears are rear end deep in the cabinets & yaak, most problems come from the transplanted problem bears from from glacier/hungry horse and yellowstone ran into a big one about 4 years ago that was 700 lbs when F&G released him the same year. They keep you from getting bored when your out and about in the woods. danny

[7.62 Precision]

I'll make a wager that grizzlies will be hunted in the lower 48 inside of 5 yrs from today.

I hope so. Some of the states are being quite reasonable about the predators, and are pushing hard against the Federal agencies an various lobbying organizations.

They are easier to manage when hunted.

[Blaine]

But somehow forums like this one choose to deny them

I know I speak for all when I say we appreciate the tremendous sacrifice you make being here, and keeping us all in the know....

[BigSky56]

Brent Ive been through the USF&G grinder on livestock depredation by wolves and bears, if theres no carcass no money if theres a carcass and wolves or bears are feeding on it but it cant be determined what killed it no money. Then theres the fight of hamburger prices vs seed stock prices. The hoops you jump thru can make you lose your religion. defenders of wildlife isnt standing there with a bucket of cash they only pay if the feds say so and they dont pay for the vet bills of who what and how it died. are you talking about rank&file biologists or ed bangs and chris servheen? Self perpetuating gov wildlife experts have caused more problems than they have solved. As far as bear defense Iam reminded of old Bob from the Choteau area that ended up with a 9K$ fine and 250K$ legal fees for being caught halfway between the barn and his house and having to dump a brownie charging him, servheen said the GW was over zealous the US DA must of been over zealous too Bob finally won his case on appeal, we have 4-5 shootings a year around this county bears in chicken coups garbage cans, feed bins etc. that get shot. The feds dont show up with a happy face they are annoyed that you called them and they come with guns, ticket books and why didnt you put wolf tape on your fences$ or hire wolf wranglers$ to ride and camp on your property. Go to a depredation claim meeting sometime you will find out how a well oiled bureaucracy functions. somebody once remarked that you can fool the fans but you cant fool the players. danny

[Malamute]

I think bears will be hunted at some point, and they should be. The G&F hunt them right now when they become problems. Defense now isn't as troublesome as it was 10 years ago, simply because they know that there are no shortage of bears, and they have become more of a problem with people over that time. That's what having a few tourists and other people killed and eaten will do for you.

No problem with hunting woofs in the areas they do hunt them. There is no shortage of them either. It was a long bitter politically oriented and driven debate to get to that point though, just as it will be with the bears.

If anyone is being overcompensated in multiples for bear and woof losses, the ranchers around here aren't aware of it. The rules were changed, and now its even harder to get compensation. There has to be proof of what animal kills them, which is very difficult to nearly impossible to do in many cases in National Forest grazing leases where the cows are out all summer, or even on the back of a ranch. Because woofs or a bear ate it doesn't mean they killed it. OK, true enough, but its becoming harder to collect, even when its not a stretch to understand what happened. When talk of reintroduction started in the late 80's/early 90's, there was a lot of sweet talk about certain groups being sure ranchers losses were compensated for. That was part of the plan, make sure ranchers werent losing their shirts at the expense of the woofs, and gain their agreement to not oppose them. Now, years later, those promises seem to be forgotten, and they keep raising the bar. They are squeezing them slowly. Regardless of the fact that theres more woofs than the original plan called for as target numbers and areas, any time theres a hunt, many scream bloody murder and act like they are on the brink of extinction, which they are not by any means. That's why I called bull feathers on the numbers in that article. The numbers they used, and the way they used them are nothing short of misleading, if not downright intentionally lying about the numbers of bears and what they mean. Something stinks here, on the bear front and the woof front.

I used to be very open about the woofs and bears. Over time, I've seen some (not all) of the dire predictions happen. I still have no problem with them being here, that's part of what keeps it all interesting to me, but, there needs to be a realistic plan to deal with problems. Theres been so much sheer balony spewed by both sides, I'm really tired of all the BS and rhetoric. It wasn't the end of the world to bring them back, and it definitely wasn't a completely benign event either. The numbers need to be managed to keep them stable in the decent country that can support them, they need to be dealt with when they cause troubles, and they need to stop being treated like some sort of god-animals. I think the bears and woofs both will do fine under those conditions.

Edit: Good post Danny, I saw it after I posted mine. You have a closer front row seat than I have.

[cas]

They need to relocate some grizzly bear. Starting with right to the suburban neighborhoods where these people live.

[AJMD429]

Don't even try to tell me that they will stay out in the hot, sparse desert when there are dumpsters in town, water tanks in feed lots, and irrigation in the fields.

We've seen that already with other species; somehow they just don't read the rule-books we humans print up.

They need to relocate some grizzly bear. Starting with right to the suburban neighborhoods where these people live.

That seems fair enough...

..............

......................

How about we turn them loose in Washington DC; lots of trash there needing cleaned up, and nobody would shoot them, 'cuz they still aren't really allowed to have guns there...