ORIGINAL: wyote
Brutal you say just because the populations are high is certain areas, doesn't allow hunting for the good of the over all population doesn't hold water. How about big horn sheep, mountain goats, wild buffalo. All of them live in very limited areas and the populations are limited but they are still hunted. Wyoming hunts wild buffalo in the Jackson hole area.
Good questions. I'll try to answer them for you the best that I can.
Big horn sheep and mountain goats never really have occured in huge numbers in the lower 48. They are also wide spread and have a higher reproductive rate than grizzlies. They also occupy basically the same areas they always have (and have been successfully introduced in more).
Their habitat is essentially intact, since it's really not desirable for human use like housing developments and the like. They still number in the tens of thousands if not more.
The buffalo: for one thing they are heavily ranched in captivity so we are never in danger of losing those genetics. Also, they are a different animal than the grizzly and their populations respond differently to increased mortality (say from hunting). I'm not an expert so I can't tell you exactly why but for one thing they occupy smaller home ranges and so a sustainable population can exist in a smaller area.
Whereas the grizzly may only have 1 cub every two years while occupying a 100 square mile home range per bear. So with the amount of wild land we have left along with the human uses of that land, it can be difficult to get populations to a level where they can withstand added mortality from hunters.
In a small population of say 100 with 50 females with an annual reproduction of 25 cubs (which is really high). If you harvest 10-15 and say 6 more die from other causes, that is almost your entire annual production. If you take into account the deaths from other things like old age, problem bears that are killed etc that makes it very unlikely the population could increase or even stay even and likely cause it to be quite unstable or decline. Of course population dynamics is much more complex than that basic example. There are also numerous other factors to consider.
ORIGINAL: wyote
It is the endangered species act that is the problem. IMO it's a joke. I live in an area that has 3 endangered species, grizzly, wolf and black footed ferret. Now the feds want to add 2 more. The sage grouse and the whitetail prarie dog. Once a species is on there, it's almost impossible to get them off!!!!!!!! There is no sound management behind it.
Well the endangered species act isn't the greatest management tool around thats for sure. However, it does allow us to manage animals that would otherwise be extinct by the time a problem was even detected. There have been some good success stories using the ESA but often it's applied like a bandaid without addressing the real issues threatening the species.
I just hope I'm still alive when the grizz is delisted so I can hunt one hopefully in Idaho.