Congress’s grizzly betrayal

Hunters could scout grizzlies from the air and then be deposited on the ground to kill them. (Aerial shooting is still forbidden.) They could hunt wolves during denning season, either shooting a mother wolf, thus dooming her babies, or entering the den and killing all, frequently with gas. Hunters could also bait, trap or snare, causing an agonizing death usually exacerbated by freezing temperatures. The traps are steel-jawed. A snare is a wire that wraps around an animal’s neck, then tightens as it tries to pull away.

These enhanced methods would target animals at their most vulnerable, in other words, and cause maximum suffering for no tenable reason. Moreover, artificially reducing the number of predators winnows down diversity essential to a healthy ecosystem, which can lead to unintended and disastrous consequences.

This isn't hunting! It's slaughter for no good reason! Taking these predators out of the ecosystem will cause their natural prey to reproduce in massive numbers! Mice and rats will run rampant with no predators left to stop them! The ecosystem is a delicate balance and this is like hitting it with a hammer!

What a crock of shit...Wipe out the predators and nature becomes totally unbalanced. We've see this too many times in the U.S.

Of hunters, one must ask: Where is the sportsmanship in all of this?

I don't hunt, but then again neither does anyone else who uses any of these methods to kill wolves and Bears. This is no more hunting then those exotic game farms where an exotic animal of some type is raised not to fear humans and then locked into a few acres so a "hunter" can then pay a small fortune to kill it so he can brag to his friends that he "hunted" a Lion. Whoever uses these proposed methods to kill wolves and bears is NOT a hunter! They are no more of a hunter then the person working on the kill floor in a slaughterhouse.

"what’s to stop Wyoming from authorizing hunting grizzlies in Yellowstone?"

Since I live here I can answer that, It is Illegal to hunt in Yellowstone period by federal regulation , and the park is not under the Wyoming game and fish depts. jurisdiction.  Now the areas outside the parks boundries do fall under their jurisdiction , but much of that area is designated wilderness areas with their own sets of rules .

 Also , this state has a law on the books, (in the hunting regulations) , that anyone that takes to the air, ( flies ) cannot legally hunt for 24 hrs after said flight.

I applaud Wyoming for it's sensible hunting laws. Sincerely.

Well I haven't hunted for the last 3 years at all, use to do it all the time , but kept it fair chase , and a stroke of luck( luck is what I told those that didn't fill their tags and were too lazy to do their research or scouting).

Something I am keenly aware of is the land , can only support so much , once that limit is reached , there are cyclic die offs  due to any number of reasons , the most recognized I think is the cycle of rabbits and hares  can be used as evidence of that cycle. And it happens to other species of wildlife as well. The problem I have recognized is what was once suitable habitate , 100 years ago , is no longer as suitable as it once was for any multitudes of reasons , but the number one reason I recognize , is human usage and encroachment, I am not talking about running livestock ( though that too plays a part) , but humans recreating( doesn't have to be hunters ) in areas , that they never could before , with relative ease with the expectation that those wild places are not exactly wild ( I like to call that , the "bambi effect").

Just last fall we had a tourist( in Yellowstone) take a buffalo calf in their SUV because they "thought" it had been abandoned and was cold , the calf had to be euthanized because of it after repeated attempts to get it back with its herd , which rejected it after human contact.

I doubt you will agree with the states wolf management plan , a set area that they would be treated as trophy game with a lic needed , and outside that recovery zone treated like vermin , no lic needed and no bag limit  and the trophy management area is a pretty large area without the reservation being included , and unless your an enrolled tribal member you cant hunt the rez , unless your invited by a tribal member that is enrolled.

 but this is how I understand it , agree or not. outside where they transplanted the greys out of Canada , they would encroach on 2 other endangered species of wolves , so to keep the transplants from killing these smaller different species off( which they would do because of their different styles of interaction) and to give the Mexican grey and the prarie grey subspecies a chance , the state does not want the transplanted Canadian greys ( larger and a pack roamer, while the other 2 subspecies are not pack roamers and smaller)to kill off what already is there and trying to make some kind of a comeback.

Something I am keenly aware of is the land , can only support so much , once that limit is reached , there are cyclic die offs  due to any number of reasons , the most recognized I think is the cycle of rabbits and hares  can be used as evidence of that cycle. And it happens to other species of wildlife as well.

I agree. I also understand the need for wild life management like the Deer hunting season back in Michigan. I don't hunt, but I know that if the herd gets too big it's bad for the herd overall. There's simply not enough food because of humans moving in to support a large herd and nature takes over and there is a starve off. Much worse. The survivors become very weak and also in many cases diseased. Plus an overly large herd becomes a danger on roads and highways. So there must be a certain number of them taken every year to keep their numbers under control. Then there are a few members of my family, like many others, that a couple members of them getting their deer that year means meat through the winter.

What I think they are proposing up in Alaska though upsets the balance of nature where it is still very much alive. Taking these predators out of the system at the rates that would happen if people were allow to kill them off the way this would allow will seriously upset that balance. Moose to Mice and many mammals between would grow in numbers to the point where they could become a danger to themselves and a danger to the people who do live up there. If this were being done as wild life control then I could almost accept it, but it's not. It's not like the Wolf and Grizzly Bear populations are out of control. And I certainly can not accept the methods that will be allowed to be used.

randy I can see your point , and agree with a lot of it , I am also keeping in mind what those wildlife populations( both game and non game) are being managed for, and its not just hunting , but hunting does play a big part of it when it comes to money into a system for preservation.

Rocky mountain elk population stats prior & during the  introduction of the grey wolf to Yellowstone:
Elk Population
1994 19,045 (year before wolf reintroduction)
1995 16,791 (reintroduction began)
1996 no count taken
1997 no count taken
1998 11,742
1999 14,538 (prior to late season elk hunt)
2000 13, 400 (prior to late season elk hunt)
2001 11,969
2002-03 9,215
2004 8,335
2005 9,545
2006 6,588
2007 6,738
2008 6,279
2009 6,070
2010 4,635
2011 4,174
2012 3,915
2013 no count taken
2014 2,954
(via U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service during the mid winter count at the national elk refuge in Jackson wy)

Now some of the fluctuations can be attributed to mild or harsh winters in the back country  from year to year, and elk that don't normally leave those areas coming down for the supplemental feeding . but other species have also been affected with their numbers declining in this particular area , and having a few show up where they habitually haven't normally been seen .

as the elk , moose and deer and even bison , start getting thinned out ( a benefit I think to the over all ecosystem , the changes in migratory patterns move them farter out) , and the predators follow , into areas no longer really suitable habitat anymore.

Now one can say hunters don't do anything  but :

 In 1907, only 41,000 elk remained in North America. Thanks to the money and hard work invested by hunters to restore and conserve habitat, today there are more than 1 million.
   In 1900, only 500,000 whitetails remained. Thanks to conservation work spearheaded by hunters, today there are more than 32 million.
 That money was not just from outside organizations , but from a self imposed tax that hunters themselves imposed on themselves , that tax helps pay to procure lands  for use as suitable habitat , pay for studies to make sure herds are not being overhunted , and it benefits not just the game animals , but the non game wildlife and fowl as well.

But more is generated by the hunter when they pay for their lics and different needed permits to hunt specific areas , at least that is what I have seen here over the 25 years I have lived here, and that's not counting the money brought into local economies, that simple tourism just doesn't bring in .

It certainly sounds like a big success story and an example that Alaska should emulate. There are certainly better ways to manage wildlife, such as is being done in Wyoming, then making hunting into nothing more then slaughtering when there is not an over population problem of Wolves or Grizzlies there. Besides, if I did hunt and took a Wolf or Grizzly by killing it in it's den (and killing it's young at the same time) or by wire snare or steel trap, I'd be embarrassed to call myself a hunter.

randy , I cant say everything is being done RIGHT , here , but I do hope that it is viewed realistically, and it is the unrealistic views that sometimes make it difficult .

take the wolf reintroduction , people that don't live here , think that there is this vast expanse of land , suitable for the reintroduction , but in reality the real area suitable is not really that big  for different reasons .  and factor in the knee jerk humanization of the animals themselves  and its not really a good thing.

there is talk of trying to get grizzley delisted here , but that is based on real wildlife science and what the land can conceivably support as a viable population to keep them from becoming endangered again, and the same has been thought of about the transplanted wolves , also keeping in mind that there are different subspecies that are actually more native to the areas that the Canadian greys were transplanted into.

In 96 when they dropped the wolves into the park , it was said that there were no native rocky mnt wolves there , but during the public meetings in 95 , it was testified to that there actually were , they were located in the back country, far from people , but because no evidence could be provided they existed it was deemed , they didn't.

Also keep in mind that the native wolf ( a subspecies ) didn't roam in packs , they roamed as pairs , that as soon as the young reached adulthood , were sent to find their own territories and mates, and instead of evolving to run entire herds, they took young of the year and smaller canids such as coyote, fox. and they also were a smaller more compact wolf , 120 pounds being big , with 140-50 pounds being a very well fed one.

What was dropped in the park evolved to run herds of caribou over great distances , runs in packs ranging fro 7 to 10 members , gets up to 200 pounds on average. and that's not counting when 2 packs merge and make what around here is called a super pack of 14 -18 members.

I was told by a biologist they couldn't use either of the other 2 subspecies because they themselves are endangered , even though they are both genetically , and socially( for wolves) as close a match as could have been asked for . The Southern rcky mnt wolf( Mexican grey) is making very impressive strides at recovery in NM and southern Colorado , the prarie wolf ( for an idea of this one think the movie dances with wolves , that was a prarie wolf hybrid), not so much , but its holding its own for now.

The disaster I forsee leaving the park wolves unchecked outside the area and numbers agreed on , is they have proven that as a pack they eliminate all other canine competition , they will and have killed other wolf packs over territory , have driven or killed off the coyote population  as well as the fox, now keep in mind what I said , the native wolf , coyote , and fox all mate and raise their young in pairs, they have different social structures than the animals transplanted , I don't think , I know that the true native wolf subspecies the northern rcky mnt wolf was killed off because the wrong subspecies was transplanted into their actual range , and have been left unchecked  from even modest controls because of people feeling they provide something that they actually don't , which most say is balance as the apex predator , problem actually is , they don't stop being predators , and once their natural prey is liquidated or diminished , they turn to the next available source .

So I am left with a question , which was worse , eradicating the historically natural species to the point we couldn't tell if they were even still here, or transplanting a subspecies , that evolved and acts differently than what was historically here? personally I think both actions were wrong . but time will tell.

A very fair, intelligent, informed and well thought out answer. Well done Mark!

After reading your explanation all I can do is to agree. Both actions were wrong. I think the main failure was not establishing that the native Rocky Mountain Wolves were actually there before introducing a larger more dominate species. Simply not enough research, study and forethought went into making the decision to introduce the new Wolves. Someone really dropped the ball in deciding that they didn't exist there any longer. Still, there really is little that can be done now, at least inside the park. Outside declaring them open game seems to be the only answer, for the time being anyway. You're right, I don't like it. But I don't see any other way around the problem.

Randy , I cant say I really "like" it either , but if keeping the transplants from expanding outside the agreed on places and numbers gives the other 2 subspecies actually endangered a better chance of coming back to their native ranges , then I realistically have to say it is what has to be done .

As for what the government determined , the reintroduction was talked about back in the 70s , and then again in the 80s, but the government could not find any evidence that the native wolf had survived and were actually reproducing, so over 30 years they determined the subspecies no longer existed , contrary to what they were being told by "civilians" that lived worked and played there. considering the solitary nature of the species , and the remoteness of some of the claimed areas , they could walk around for another 30 years and never see  them. I remember it use to be that way with cats(PUMA) when I first moved here, only evidence I saw for 10 years was tracks or its scream.

The Canadian greys or mc Kenzie valley timber wolf as they are known are highly adaptable , they can survive in not only mountainous regions , but open grassland. and they once they have the numbers have no fear of humans, to them we become prey once they find out how ineffectual we really are.

 if left unchecked , I can see the last 120 years of conservation  to bring species back from the brink , iradicated, and those wolves , are on the move south ,east and west.

there is a lot more I could say about this , but I have already gone off topic , thank you for allowing it .

No problem. An interesting discussion.

Bravo, Mark!

I agree! Bravo!

To get back to the article , I have to wonder about a few things , one is what is the status of the caribou herds in that area of Alaska? and knowing wolves , are there actually that many that aircraft hunting is really needed? I know the government does it all the time and it has been used here by government agents to remove "proven problem
" wolves here in the lower 48. and that leads to the question about the bears, what is the status of their natural prey?

keep in mind that in Alaska  the old wives tale is that the only difference genetically between a grizzly and a brown bear is what is its predominant territory and food source , if its located on the coastal region and its food source is omnivorous to include salmon its a brown bear , if its inland and in the interior and its omnivorous and eats caribou its a grizz. same genus of bear just different diet and range.

So that makes me wonder , what is the F&G trying to protect and manage from that point of view , because neither species is considered endangered nor even considered a species of interest for endangerment in that place.

It's right here:

Distilled to its essence, Alaska’s politicians want to reduce bear and wolf populations so hunters will have more moose and caribou to kill. Alaska’s full congressional delegation — Rep. Don Young and Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (all Republicans) — is behind the push.

They want to make Moose and Caribou hunters happier by reducing the predators that feed on them, thereby upping their populations. That's it in a nutshell. They want to increase the business of Moose and Caribou hunting and believe that the Wolves and Grizzly Bears are in the way of making that happen. So slaughtering Wolves and Grizzlies is strictly a tourist business decision. Sick, as far as I am concerned.

OK , so they want to up the moose and caribou herds , and to do so they want to open up the designated preserves to thin out the predators .

basically its the same as managing the predators so they can better manage the herds, if you cant manage the predator , managing the herds is difficult at best to almost impossible , that is what I call being on the horns of a deeeelima .

I have family that use to live in Alaska , and sustenance hunting is still a very big thing there even 20 years after they left.

 I cant agree with going after denned animals but I would have to ask what the local biologists have to say, and ask what they think is actually needed.

I don't think a lot of the hunting is that different than where I am and their fees for permits and such do the same there as it does here , and I do know that a premium is paid by those hunters from out of state in higher lic and permit fees than a local sustenance hunter and its that money that pays for the programs that keep all the animals a renewable resource  and it is a renewable resource , one that has to be taken care of if any of us want it to be there for future generations., they just have a different view  from mine or yours .

I guess so.  Along with going after denned animals I can't say I agree much with hunting from planes, using steel traps or wire snares. Issue extra Wolf and Bear hunting permits for a few more years and get those hunting tourist dollars too and it'll do the same thing. It's not as much that I object to what they're doing, as much as I object to how they're doing it.

I have never been big on trapping or snaring large game , my dad use to trap muskrats , and I think it was Kav that grew up trapping so I would defur to him on that subject, small game I'm on the fence there but would rather a humane and quick end to it.

I also can see the issue of more lics , but one thing I have learned is the animals don't take long to figure out where they are safe from predation, that might be an issue as well those animals that stay on the preserve and venture outside the boundries , I do know at the national elk refuge , the same as those preserves up in Alaska, and ran by the feds, that they have weekend drawings to be allowed to hunt the refuge , the drawings are on a fri , and if your drawn you have the next week you can hunt on the refuge during set hours and its only good for that week  then you have to attend another drawing , they use the last number of your hunting lic  as the number that's drawn so 0 thru 9  and even then its first come first serve to sign up with a limited number of spots open. and you actually have to be present for the drawing.

Yes it was me Mark. I trapped muskrat mostly and it was for survival. I never trapped or snared larger game. I quit trapping at around 17 years old. I have never done it since.

In fact I am totally against it in any form now.

When I was a kid (about 31 or 14) a friend of mine and I trapped Rats near the grain elevator in Hopkins. We got 50 cents for everyone we got. After awhile I couldn't stand showing up at a trap and finding even a Rat still alive and having to kill it, so I quit and left the job to my friend Billy. I got a part-time job at the farm supply store instead.

when dad passed , I inherited all his traps , all date from the late 40s and early 50s , the place I have here the prievious owner that died left behind a few coyote traps his kids didn't want and thought they were junk, right now since I don't trap and don't plan to start , simply use them as outside wall hangers, decoration , I know just enough about trapping I can do it , but also enough to explain the traps uses to younger people , I let them decide just as I did if it was something I would do. its actually a lot of work.

(about 31 or 14)?

Damn it! 13 or 14!

31? shit! Scheeeesch!

Thank you Mark. Haven't hunted since I was 16. Your article was well thought out, informative and I learned a lot. Food for thought, as WA is actually trying to re-introduce Grizzlies into National Wilderness areas.

Don I tend to trust what the biologists that don't have an agenda tend to say , such as what is the carrying capacity of an area for a different species in relationship to other species , and a management plan is started there. , I couple that with what I actually observer over many years of observation and then form my own opinion , and I adjust my own actions personally , does what one person chooses to do really make a difference , remains to be seen , but as long as its doesn't hurt .

maybe after the Grizz is delisted ( when ever that is IF it ever happens ) some of the ones here can be safely moved to other suitable areas that their chance of survival is good , but I would tend to leave that to the wildlife biologists that knows what is actually needed with minimal human intervention .

Disgusting.  I have a solution though.  In order to get a permit to hunt these animals in such pathetic and spineless ways, the hunter must battle a grizzly in hand to paw combat fashion.  If he or she wins wins, they get a permit.

hal there are actually some people that do that , they use primitive arms , black powder , archery equipment , and in some places depending on state law , spears and even just a knife , those are adrenelian junkies  to my way of thinking . the spear and knife hunters are the thump the chest growling I R man types to me .

 I view your comment of evening the field by using hand to paw , tooth and nail  about the same way I view those that say since we are reintroducing different species  that we should do it where ever that species once ranged , the problem with that is I doubt the reintroduction of large carnivores would go over very well in places they use to range , but have become extremely highly and densely populated , so some form of management dependant on what the actual goals are has to happen. and unfortunately the clock cannot be turned back 100 or 200 years to make adiquite and sustainable populations or even habitat . Drop a pack of wolves like dropped into Yellowstone in the poconos , or the adarondacks , watch what happens in just 10 years  or transplant some grizz into western PA. It would be a disaster wouldn't it ? I think the first group dropped in 96 was only 36-38 wolves .

Hunting used as a tool for management has been around for a very long time , even the author of the opinion piece stated that the article wasn't suppose to be anti hunting , and I see the actual funds being brought in that pays for that wildlife , both game and non game that benefits in habitat procurement , maintenance , as a benefit  to both people and wildlife. and I don't see those opposed to hunting stepping up to replace those funds lost if people decide to stop hunting replacing those funds that would otherwise be lost, last I checked the anti hunting organizations pump in the millions of dollars into opposing hunting , hunting pumps BILLIONS of dollars into the system annually, I say its time those opposed to the activity step up , put their money where their mouths are and meet or beat the funds that those who choose to hunt  put into the system, until then there really isn't anything to talk about , we can quibble about methods of take , what is fair chase and what isn't , but the end result ,is eventually someone some where is going to have to go out and kill an animal , whether its through legal hunting by individuals that choose to or state sponsored agents that are paid to do it through taxation.

 The issue I see is when ever a non native invasive species is introduced that has no checks to keep its numbers managable, be it plant , animal or fish , it throws the ecosystem into chaos. exasperate it with trying to transplant a similar but different species to attempt to make some kind of balance usually goes very bad in the long run.