Heh I just read what I wrote.....pretty funny.

Brutal

LOL I actually did crack a smile reading your post.

First on your explaination on grizzlies reproduction. Their production rates are very similar to the black bear. Black bears have survived hunting seasons for years.

Black bear have cubs every other year (basically the same as grizzlies) Fewer and fewer cubs are surviving because of the grizzly and of course of the black bear boars kill all the cubs they can find also. We're having a huntable population of B. bears that are being wiped out because of a protected species. Won't a little management of the grizzly population help these poor (sic) black bears out?

Second you say the "ESA has allowed us to manage these animals". There is no management. "IT'S TOTAL PROTECTION.... PERIOD" I've been into area's that have been shut down because of grizzly bear activity. No hikeing, camping, picnicing, fishing etc. That's protection not management.

The G&F killed a grizzly sow here a couple of years ago. She had killed between $30,000 to $50,000 worth of livestock in her life time. Some rancher really took it in the shorts on that bear. The rancher couldn't even protect his lively hood! BTW that sow weighed in at over 900 lbs. If you know anything about grizzlies you know that is about twice the average weight of a sow grizzly. If you ever go thru Meeteetse stop at the museum and look at her.

I have no idea what it's like to live around big city gangs. But........I hear they are good for the populations in the big cities. They keep the bad guys numbers down which is good for the over all population. If the cops keep killing all these predators (gangbangers) we might have to put them on the ESA...........You know what? I COULD CARE LESS!!!!! I DONT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEM!!!!!!!! I'm all for protecting the gang bangers because they are becoming endangered. IMO they are good for the overall city enviroment

People that live around grizzlies have a different veiw of them than people that don't have to put up with all the crap that goes with liveing in to area.

Just because your educatated doesn't mean you have any street (or should I say mountain) smarts

As for your comparison between black bears and grizzlies: your right they are managed much the same way. That doesn't mean anything really and it doesn't help your argument either. I'm sure you realize how carefully controlled black bear harvest is (at least in my state). All bears have to be turned in at Fish and Game offices etc. They keep a really close eye on the black bear harvest because they are so suseptable to additive mortality from hunting. But it' just logic, if you have a black bear population of 3,000. Your annual harvestable surplus could be anywhere from 750-1,000 bears per year. So this population can obviously hold its own even with hunting pressure.

I don't see competetion being a huge problem between black bears and grizzlies. I'm sure it has some effect by lowering black bear populations but I doubt the black bear population is in trouble due to competition with grizzlies. For one thing black bears have a wider range of forage items and the two bears don't have the same preferred foods. I'm sure the black bear population will suffer but I don't think it will be substantial.

As for your ESA thing: Protection is a part of management believe it or not. Hunting is also management. All those things are just tools we use to manage wildlife. It appears to me that your saying that a population has to be harvested in order to be "managed".

By shutting down the campground or whatever they are managing (manipulating) the circumstances to aviod any possible human/bear conflicts. This happens all the time and not just with endangered species. Any large carnivore near human use areas will cause a stir and most of the time the animal ends up getting killed one way or another.

Protection of endangered species is not total by any means. You are still able to get permits to kill endangered animals, and there are no laws at all against taking endangered plants. Hell, Wildlife Services is the governments own squad of endangered assassins. They are the ones that kill the problem animals like wolves/bears/cougars depredating livestock. So I wouldn't term it total protection. Total protection would mean we value the animals above humans and that doesn't happen. Wolves and grizzlies are killed on a regular basis.

The important thing about the ESA is that the scientists finally realized that losing species and thus their genes is probably not a good thing. I know you guys don't care about biodiversity and genetics but that doesn't mean it isn't important.

Don't put a label on me just yet. You think that if someone is educated then they are city slicker or whatever. I grew up in Idaho and I work in the biggest wilderness complex in the lower 48. I just look back at myself about 10 years ago and I was just like you. I was fortunate enough to learn some skills that helped me to look at different sides of an issue, not just the side my opinion leans toward. Understanding the big picture is important. Just because you walk outside and see frogs falling from the sky doesn't mean it's happening everywhere else. But it may be effecting other places.

And that is what most of these discussions boils down to. As a biologist I'm still trying to learn how to communicate with the public, especially a hostile public that could care less about biodiversity or conservation when his cows are getting eaten. I have alot to learn yet about that aspect of it.

What it all comes down to is you and other folks that live outside of WY are telling us that our G&F and G&F bioligist don't know anything about manageing big game herds. Also we shouldn't be allowed to manage our own game herds in our state. AND...... that everyone else in the US will make all the discsions (sp?) for us because we don't know what we're talking about.

I'm outta here on this one because it isn't going anywhere.

BTW brutal were you hired by Bruce Babbot?

When did I say that? Who said the state shouldn't manage game herds? Last time I checked, game animals were managed by the state game agencies.


Um no. What is that supposed to mean?

In other words you've been unable to even mount a single effective argument so your giving up.

You are a lost cause, Brutal. You say that we have no concept of how other people see our bear problem because we are rednecks who dont know anything outside of Wyoming. And we are ignorant? Those are some pretty stereotypical remarks, if you ask me. You must have read somewhere in one of your yuppie pamphlets that everyone in Wyoming is a Cowboy, and therefore a conservative redneck. Open your eyes! Wyoming is just another state with modern cities and educated people just like everywhere else in the US. Id have to say that you are the one who cannot see out of your own little world, that world being your pamphlets and TV shows full of "scientific" information that biased groups like the ESA give you.

And as for your derogatory remark that we are spouting off about redneck ****, grow up! You hear one opinion, based on first hand accounts and experiences that you dont like because it contradicts your opinion that is third hand information at best, and you immediately say it is uneducated redneck ****. Please. Ive never heard anything so immature in my life. My guess is you are one of those guys who cannot stand being wrong. You think you know better than us because you believe the biased information that the ESA and other sources give you. Like wyote, i am through discussing this matter with you. You say you are an educated man, but talking to you is like talking to an ignorant child, a child who is ignorant to the truth becaue he does not want to believe it.

Umm Brutal thats checkmate for windriverhunter...sorry bud geuss those pamphlets didnt do you that much good.

Yeah I was pretty much three sheets to the wind when I typed that. Not really a good idea and not mature. I apologize for those comments.

As an aside: I see alot of name calling but I've yet to see a logical argument mounted from you guys who "live with grizzlies". Basically, all I take away from this is that your angry and emotional arguments are logically flawed.

So a few homeboys from wyoming see grizzlies in the woods and since they live there, no body esle has a say so on the matter? Where is your fact finding imfo on statistics that backs up that they need to be hunted? I think Brutal put together more facts and some homeboys got there nose bent out of joint.
For those of you that are parioniod to go into the woods where griz are or feel threaten then I suggest stay home, or be bear aware if you go into the bush. You have to keep in mind that what few bears you see is that thats all there is. We invade there terriotory and whine and cry because we got threatned by one. Then leave!!! Bear spray does work in 90% of all attacks and firearms are 60% succesful according to studies. I carry both when I venture any distance here from the kabin. By the way, I live in the Rocky Mountain trench between Glacier and Waterton National Parks on the border, and its the heart of Grizzly country and at any given time I can look out my window and possibly see one. I myself personally just don't see the numbers to justify a grizzly bear hunt here in the states.
When the numbers are high enough to warrant a griz hunt, then "yes" I wil apply.
Good Day, Bobby

Here's my 2 cents.
The states should be able to manage all game by specific geographic area's. Be it Griz,Wolf or whatever. Just because there isn't a over abunance of game in one area does not mean it's not a problem in another.
I also feel that the Feds should come up with the funds for the states to manage and study the individual species in question since they have labeled them endangered across such a broad region.
I would also suggest that if hunting was management tool that was to be used it should be set up by the state in such a way that everyone in that particular area gets a fair chance at a draw and is not money driven (High Bid).