SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a public debate on Monday over its plan to lift federal protections from grizzly bears in the Yellowstone National Park area, a measure that would pave the way for hunting of the bears in surrounding Western states.

Millions of tourists visit Yellowstone annually hoping to see the outsize, hump-shouldered bears that were hunted and trapped to near extinction before being classified in 1975 as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.

In the past three decades, the number of grizzlies in Yellowstone and surrounding areas -- eastern Idaho, southern Montana and northwest Wyoming -- has risen to more than 600 from 136, prompting the government to propose removing that population from the list of protected wildlife.

Public hearings on the proposal began on Monday in Montana and will conclude on Thursday in Idaho. If the measure is approved, which could happen by the end of the year, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will oversee management of grizzlies that have ventured outside the park.

Each state has crafted a plan to allow hunting of some of those grizzlies under certain conditions, a practice banned for more than 30 years. Each state would have the authority to kill bears considered chronic nuisances to humans or livestock.

Grizzlies, like gray wolves, have been at the center of controversy in Western states ever since they came under federal protection.

The plan to lift the grizzlies' federal protection is opposed by some powerful environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, which say it is premature to remove the bears' safety net because their long-term success is still not assured.

The outcry has reverberated in ranching communities in Montana and Wyoming, where rising bear numbers are paralleled by more encounters with people and livestock.

"When they start interfering with your livelihood, there are too many of them," said Gus Vaile, a Montana cattle rancher who last year lost a handful of cows and calves to grizzlies.

John Emmerich, assistant wildlife division chief with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said grizzlies are less popular with those who live near them while "people that don't live here think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread."

The Humane Society of the United States views the bears from the latter vantage point and is "strongly opposed to the notion of hunting grizzly bears," said John Grandy, senior vice president for wildlife.

"Being the largest predator, they are peculiarly vulnerable to sport hunting," Grandy said.

"Literally thousands and thousands" from across the nation are expected to apply for licenses to hunt grizzlies when Wyoming offers a season, which could happen as early as next year, said Dave Moody, the state's trophy game coordinator.

The excitement already is building among sportsmen. "I'd love to shoot one," said Dick Hadlock, an Idaho hunter.

577NitroExpress:

It will be interesting to read the responses to your post. ( live in one of the most rabid anti-hunting states in the US) As someone who thinks and agrees with Westerners on almost anything, I confess that I am uncertain about allowing grizzly bear hunting. ( I always fully support the right of any rancher, farmer or herder to shoot bears preying on stock or sheep) What bothers me about allowing grizzly bear hunting is that the grizzly simply has no chance against man to survive as a species if we hunt him without restriction. He won't run from man. In fact he will attack as we all know. He scares the wits out of man - and that's why he is such a trophy for us. Telling me that there are 600 bears where there were fewer than 200 doesn't inspire me with confidence that we can allow hunting. I hope no one will be calling me a "tree hugger" or "bunny lover" (although I am rather soft on bunnies) Just my thoughts.

IF they lift the ban I really doubt there will be unrestricted hunting. Im sure that there will be plenty of people watching it and makeing sure that it is a royal PIA to get one of the few hunting permits. Thats a big IF in the removing of the ban

Perhaps, gerry, you didn't think this one through thoroughly. Because hunting of grizzlies is allowed does not mean that it would be unrestricted and unlimited. To the contrary, I could see perhaps as many as three or four permits being issued to hunters. The price for the permits, if they are allowed to go to the highest bidder, would be quite high, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If there is a draw for the three or four permits, there would be thousands apply for them. This would be similar to our elk hunt in Pennsylvania where thousands apply for the less than 100 permits issued and our game commission strictly regulates how many are issued based upon the harvest being sustainable and not reducing the population below that level.

I don't believe anyone, with the possible exception of ranchers that have lost livestock, wants them all killed. This is not the case with wolves. There are many who think they should not have been reintroduced in the first place.

patrynkyhntr:

Yes, I was wrong to use the phrase "unrestricted hunting". It's just that reading that 600 bears are available is what worries me. Suppose permits are issued for 100 grizzlies. Now assume that immediately afterwards in that "cycle" year, grizzlies are wiped out to the tune of several hundred bears. Now we are back to "endangered" status. You and I know that all wild animals (and birds) experience "cycles". The problem is that when it happens to grizzlies they don't have that much of a margin to recover. ( They keep young with them for two years before breeding again) I support any sport hunting but we do have to realize that the grizzly is a special case - in the US anyway. Just my thoughts.

The way the story is worded is wrong from the start. Grizzlys well never be hunted in yellowstone park.

Maybe in the greater yellowstone area.

The antis want to get every body worked up about hunting park bears.

What we well get well be a number of bears that can be shot minus the ones killed doing damage.

I would expect that number to be around 25 a year.

It will definately be masterdebated,after the anti buttfucks get involved. They'll continue to make it look like there'll be hunting right around old faithful.

Oh darn does this mean I won't be able to book a room at the Old F Inn for the hunt???

(grins)

Mark D

quote:

I support any sport hunting but we do have to realize that the grizzly is a special case - in the US anyway. Just my thoughts.

I don't see it as a special case. I see no reason there can't be sustainable hunting for grizzlies in the greater Yellowstone area. Grizzlies aren't grouse with high mortality rates and abrupt population cycles. As long as the harvest doesn't exceed recruitment the population will stay stable. The money generated through application fees would provide funding for population studies. The history of modern wildlife management shows that the best thing that can happen to a species is to be made a game animal. That is a fact the anti's can't ever see. They are too wrapped up in their concern for each individual rather than for what is best for the population as a whole.

Jeff

I am all for it. The best way to save any species is to have a hunting season and mangement plan for them.

The number of licenses available from each state will be set to manage the population to a certain number. Just like a rancher manages his cattle herd.

Of course there will be lots of argument over what that exact number should be....

I can't wait for the opportunity to hunt the big bears in the continental US without having to pay exhorbitant amounts of money. ie thousands and thousands of dollars.

Gerry375: My God man I can not even fathom the mindset of a person that even contemplates the THOUGHT "unrestricted Hunting of Grizzly Bears"!
Puzzling this, to me.
Maybe you have fallen victim to a "Manchurian Candidate" like form of mind control by the "antis" over there in New York?
As with ALL true Hunters I know, and have ever come across NONE OF THEM, nor do I, care to Hunt any species into oblivion!
That would be absurd.
My number one concern regarding Game that I Hunt is the WELL BEING and preservation of Game Herds at OPTIMUM levels! Hunting them comes second.
I have seen Grizzlies in the wild here in Montana and I would never do or endorse doing anything to harm their sustaining populations!
If there are enough of them to begin Hunting them again (a federal judge made a court ruling in 1985 that arbitrarily halted the Hunting of the healthy Grizzly Bear population in Montana) then sign me up! I would love to have another chance at Hunting and then possessing one of these beautiful creatures.
If my memory serves me correctly the Montana state wide quota back in 1985 for Grizzly Bear DEATHS (this includes all man caused deaths like run over by trains and vehicles etc. as well as Hunting!) was around 18 to 20 Grizzlies a year! Once the quota was reached all Hunting ceased no matter if the tag holder was successful or not or had even got to go Hunting.
I hope you can undo the subconcious harm the anti's have done to you regarding Sport Hunting!
Long live the Grizzly Bear!
Long live the bunnies as well!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

As with ALL true Hunters I know, and have ever come across NONE OF THEM, nor do I, care to Hunt any species into oblivion!

Except for feral house cats, I'd be quite pleased if they were hunted into oblivion.

Varmit guy has it right fellas. First off, the federal judge that issued the injunction was from back east and at the requested filing from Cleveland Amory and the Fund for Animals. Montana rolled over and played dead on the issue and refused to fight the courts. Hard to believe it was 21 years ago. As VG says, the quota was totaled as ALL HUMAN CAUSED deaths at 25 animals. Usually the frigging train going over Marias Pass at Glacier nailed 3 or 4, then there was the logging trucks on the North Fork of the Flathead R that made instant rugs out of 2 or 3. F&G killed some nuisance bears in the northern Continental Divide ecosystem. Regulated sport hunting NEVER was a serious threat to the population of the bear. Uncontrolled Westward Expansion was their demise. What the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would rather not admit to is that they kill at least half a dozen every year since 1985 with drug overdoses while they study these Goddamned bears into oblivian. Yellowstone National Park doesn't really have a clue as to how many grizzlies are in the ecosystem. Everyone agrees with the 600 number. However, I was told by NPS personnel two years ago, while on a pack trip into the southeast corner of "the Park", that according to DNA analysis from bear hair samples, there were at least 225 in that corner of the park alone. Holy Ursus Crapus!! Hunting is a viable option for game management. Bring 'em on. Personally, I think that if they were hunted they would be less likely to bite and maul people. They are extremely intelligent. But we are preaching to the choir. The national conscience seems to treat this magnificant animal as a god. Now, whar's ma 300 H&H. I got a itch fer shakin hands with 'ol Ephrim".

I just read an article about this. I think it stated that at current population levels there would probably only be a total of nine permits issued between Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. I doubt very much that that would have any effect on the population of bears.

Eventually they will have to implement some form of population control or the bears will run out of habitat and end up eating more domestic animals (and elk calves). The "problem" bears will get shot by wildlife agencies. Limited hunting would save a lot of money and open up a new opportunity for hunters.

Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have fought so hard (and have spent so much $$$) to get grizzly bears numbers back up so they can be removed from the ESA, why do folks think that we would blow it and kill the crap outta them just so they can be listed under the ESA again? That's CRAZY!

I'm sure those bears that used to be removed by the wildlife agency personnel because they were getting into trash, killing livestock, or spending too much time near urban areas will now be available to those few lucky individuals who drew a "grizzly license". I'm sure these tags will be very tough to get, and I'm sure your hunt would be very closely monitored and specific to a certain animal.

Either way everyone wins...the wildlife agency, the hunter, the public.

MG

I have to agree with VG on this one...

Maybe I am just too much the optimist but with any and all species I firmly believe that MANAGED HUNTING should be the ultimate goal and I also believe that we are capable of hunting them responsibly.

This means WOLVES, BEARS and COUGARS!!

Hunters used to win the PR battle with the antis because we were reasonable stewards of the land. Today, a rift has formed between the hunting community and the conservation community because the ANTIS have succeeded in getting us so out of focus that we appear to the general public (80% of voters are neither FOR or AGAINST hunting as a whole) as unwilling to compromise. The "greens" as VG likes to affectionately call them are WINNING-- not because of what they do or what we do but because they are more succesful at winning the media war with the 80% who could care less until it comes time to go to the polls. If we are to take back the role of stewards and lower levels of wolf populations and lower levels of cougar population and increase game populations we have to influence the magic "80%"-- the ONLY way to do this is to get more women, young people and minorities into hunting.....

Just my opinion.

IV

VarmintGuy:

After reading your post (and some others) I have reconsidered my original opinion. From what you say it would seem that adequate safeguards can be in place for sport hunting. ( I always said that any rancher, farmer or herder should be allowed to shoot stock or sheep killing bears)

I hate to admit it but maybe I did become susceptible (unconsciously) to the anti hunting propaganda. ( I smiled at some of the posts. I have been accused in NY of being to the right of Attila the Hun so I assure you guys I'm not a conscious convert to the antis!)

I will say that I don't have any great faith in "game management" bureaucrats - regardless of what state they are in. I'm changing my view because you are a Westerner and I'll trust "the man on the ground". I'll keep my fingers crossed and pray that it works out - because if it doesn't the cause of sport hunting for any species will be really set back!