http://mountainjournal.org/ame...ight-to-kill-grizzly


Link has article and numerous photos.

That guy was profiled on 60 Minutes several months ago.

He states that killing a bear to make it into a rug defiles it, and states he used to hunt, "But no one kills grizzlies to eat them."

So what? Why is killing an animal to eat it morally acceptable? He doesn't have to eat a steak, he does it because he enjoys it. Vegetarians find his practice of eating meat "morally reprehensible."

The article brings up something that I have been wondering about since the 1990's.

With the influx of people from the West coast into the various Mountain States and the general changing attitudes toward hunting, I wonder, with the record numbers of applicants for the various tags in the various states, how many of those tags are being drawn by Non-Hunters?

Do the Game Departments have anyway of finding out?

Yuppie non-hunters/anti hunters in states where there are limited licenses, how do the Game Departments know if the folks buying licenses and drawing tags are actually hunting or are just keeping folks that do hunt from hunting or do the Departments care as long as the money is coming in.

I find this quite suspect that he drew a tag. Makes me think the draw was not legitimate considering high odds.

Despite his expense and choice to not hunt, this will probably mean there will be more tags issued next year since there will be one less tag filled this year.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
That guy was profiled on 60 Minutes several months ago.

I'm #229 in the ranking. Anyone get close?


https://wgfd.wyo.gov/DrawResults/frmSearch.aspx

Well, the reason I commented as I did, is what better to mess game management up than for non-hunters/anti hunters to apply for tags and then toss them.

Can a state game department FORCE anyone to hunt just because they bought a hunting license or drew a limited entry tag?

What is more amazing is that no one seems to be able to come up with evidence highlighting how hunters and hunters $'s made the comeback possible. We need to figure out how to get out our story in a positive way. We need better messengers obviously.

Don't try to make this person a villain. He drew a cheap grizz tag, as a resident I believe the cost was $600, that he can do with what he wants. He only has the "stage" for 10 days, let it pass.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:
What is more amazing is that no one seems to be able to come up with evidence highlighting how hunters and hunters $'s made the comeback possible. We need to figure out how to get out our story in a positive way. We need better messengers obviously.

Don't try to make this person a villain. He drew a cheap grizz tag, as a resident I believe the cost was $600, that he can do with what he wants. He only has the "stage" for 10 days, let it pass.

Slim is right; if he doesn't shoot one it goes to the next one in line. If all the tags are filled by guys like him, there will be more next year, and what better way to fund conservation?

quote:

Originally posted by bobby7321:
I'm #229 in the ranking. Anyone get close?


https://wgfd.wyo.gov/DrawResults/frmSearch.aspx

I'm curious where that stands as a NON-RES? I'm 289 as a NON-RES

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:
What is more amazing is that no one seems to be able to come up with evidence highlighting how hunters and hunters $'s made the comeback possible. We need to figure out how to get out our story in a positive way. We need better messengers obviously.

Don't try to make this person a villain. He drew a cheap grizz tag, as a resident I believe the cost was $600, that he can do with what he wants. He only has the "stage" for 10 days, let it pass.

Slim is right; if he doesn't shoot one it goes to the next one in line. If all the tags are filled by guys like him, there will be more next year, and what better way to fund conservation?

Interesting. Up here in most provinces the draws are for "hunters" really, not dead animals. So as an outfitter I, on quota, get X number of black bear licences for clients. So if I have 10 bear tags or 20 bear tags it actually is 10 or 20 bear hunters. If a hunter does not get a bear, I cannot re sell it.

That was an issue in days gone by as, hunters were of course convinced that outfitters would deliberately make sure they did not, as in this instance get a bear, so they could re-sell it and run another hunter.

I apply for Doe tags for the unit I hunt in expressly to not shoot them.There are too many doe tags offered in my unit.Quite a few folks around here do the same.There are units around here that is ag land and full of tags for free if you need a doe.

quote:

Don't try to make this person a villain.

I am not trying to make anyone a villain, I am simply pointing out something that might be happening, something that the Game Departments have no way of tracking.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:

What is more amazing is that no one seems to be able to come up with evidence highlighting how hunters and hunters $'s made the comeback possible. We need to figure out how to get out our story in a positive way. We need better messengers obviously.

We, Hunters as a group need to grasp reality and understand that we are a shrinking minority. It wasn't $$ from hunters that helped Grizzly numbers increase, it was USF&W and the states shutting down all hunting of Grizzlies that caused the comeback.

Hunters and game managers in Wyoming were able to convince the Feds that allowing this hunt would be a good management practice.

You know, USF&W, those fine folks that brought wolves to your area.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Don't try to make this person a villain.

I am not trying to make anyone a villain, I am simply pointing out something that might be happening, something that the Game Departments have no way of tracking.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:

What is more amazing is that no one seems to be able to come up with evidence highlighting how hunters and hunters $'s made the comeback possible. We need to figure out how to get out our story in a positive way. We need better messengers obviously.

We, Hunters as a group need to grasp reality and understand that we are a shrinking minority. It wasn't $$ from hunters that helped Grizzly numbers increase, it was USF&W and the states shutting down all hunting of Grizzlies that caused the comeback.

Hunters and game managers in Wyoming were able to convince the Feds that allowing this hunt would be a good management practice.

You know, USF&W, those fine folks that brought wolves to your area.

He didn't say it was you making the guy a villain and FYI more than $50 million dollars has been spent by the WY G&F Department to better the grizzly numbers to a sustainable level where a hunt could be held after bears were delisted in the three states of WY, ID, and MT so please don't make statements that you know nothing about! The states also didn't have to convince the USFWS to get a hunt since after delisting all the states need to do is keep the number of bears above the agreed upon minimum levels and they can do that any way they want to just like with wolves levels.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I find this quite suspect that he drew a tag. Makes me think the draw was not legitimate considering high odds.

Despite his expense and choice to not hunt, this will probably mean there will be more tags issued next year since there will be one less tag filled this year.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
That guy was profiled on 60 Minutes several months ago.

That is exactly what random draw allows and it's more than legitimate that he drew even though the odds were bad. If the hunt even gets to him as #8 on the list he'll only have ten days to take pictures or whatever else he wants to do or not do and then #9 would be called. The way the hunt is set up in units 1-6 the #1 guy drawn could shoot a sow and the season would be over.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
I apply for Doe tags for the unit I hunt in expressly to not shoot them.There are too many doe tags offered in my unit.Quite a few folks around here do the same.There are units around here that is ag land and full of tags for free if you need a doe.

So apparently you think you know more about how deer in your area need to be managed than the professional Biologists?
You could be doing more harm than good, makes you no different than the activists applying for Griz tags.
Those Bears need to be harvested, they have already reached and exceeded target numbers and are now over populated for the range.

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Don't try to make this person a villain.

I am not trying to make anyone a villain, I am simply pointing out something that might be happening, something that the Game Departments have no way of tracking.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:

What is more amazing is that no one seems to be able to come up with evidence highlighting how hunters and hunters $'s made the comeback possible. We need to figure out how to get out our story in a positive way. We need better messengers obviously.

We, Hunters as a group need to grasp reality and understand that we are a shrinking minority. It wasn't $$ from hunters that helped Grizzly numbers increase, it was USF&W and the states shutting down all hunting of Grizzlies that caused the comeback.

Hunters and game managers in Wyoming were able to convince the Feds that allowing this hunt would be a good management practice.

You know, USF&W, those fine folks that brought wolves to your area.

He didn't say it was you making the guy a villain and FYI more than $50 million dollars has been spent by the WY G&F Department to better the grizzly numbers to a sustainable level where a hunt could be held after bears were delisted in the three states of WY, ID, and MT so please don't make statements that you know nothing about! The states also didn't have to convince the USFWS to get a hunt since after delisting all the states need to do is keep the number of bears above the agreed upon minimum levels and they can do that any way they want to just like with wolves levels.

I almost can't believe it but I completely agree with Topgun, 100%


Crazy horse you are way out of your depth on this one, do some research you are not even close.

same thing olbiker said about doe tags happens in PA quite a bit, besides the luck of the draw vs an almost guaranteed tag, is this much different?


my real questions/comments:
-does this guy still have to pay the license fee?
-what can be done in the future to increase hunters applying?
-not wishing any severe ill will upon this bear huger, but wouldn't it be a bit ironic if a bear at least used his camera for a toothpick

There has been rumors of this happening where and when ever special tags are available.

Most of the time the anti's don't draw.

Make no beans about it this guy is a ANTI trying hard to couch His anti thoughts in the I WAS ONCE A HUNTER BS.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Well, the reason I commented as I did, is what better to mess game management up than for non-hunters/anti hunters to apply for tags and then toss them.

Can a state game department FORCE anyone to hunt just because they bought a hunting license or drew a limited entry tag?

Which begs the question that any intellectually honest person would ask: Is hunting part of species management or just for the enjoyment of hunters? We know the answer is yes to both but I'm fairly certain how the antis would answer given that they don't care about anything other than emotion and anthropomorphization.

So help me understand this hunt.

Only one person at a time is allowed to hunt for 9 days for a grizzly? If they don't make a kill then another person hunts the whole area for 9 days, etc, etc?

If this is the case, that seems like a weird way (to me) to reduce some population numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:

That is exactly what random draw allows and it's more than legitimate that he drew even though the odds were bad. If the hunt even gets to him as #8 on the list he'll only have ten days to take pictures or whatever else he wants to do or not do and then #9 would be called. The way the hunt is set up in units 1-6 the #1 guy drawn could shoot a sow and the season would be over.

quote:

Most of the time the anti's don't draw.

Who really knows how often antis/non-hunters draw?

I do not even know for sure that antis/non-hunters are doing this, but if they are who would know if they were drawn or how many were drawn?

I mean unlike this guy, there won't be any news stories about them and if at the end of season the Game Department involved notifies them concern their hunt and whether they were successful, I dseriousl;y doubt that they are going to admit that they are agasinst hunting and just put in the draw to keep an actual hunter from drawing.

As I said in my first response on the topic I have been curious as to the possibility/probability of this sort of thing happening when Colorado went to the draw system in the mid 1990's.

To address Aspen Hill Ann- this is to address the taking of females. If the field were flooded with hunters and too many females taken, hunt over- likely forever. This whole hunt is a hot potato issue; we'll be lucky if it happens at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
I apply for Doe tags for the unit I hunt in expressly to not shoot them.There are too many doe tags offered in my unit.Quite a few folks around here do the same.There are units around here that is ag land and full of tags for free if you need a doe.

So apparently you think you
know more about how deer in your area need to be managed than the professional Biologists?
You could be doing more harm than good, makes you no different than the activists applying for Griz tags.
Those Bears need to be harvested, they have already reached and exceeded target numbers and are now over populated for the range.

Actually, I am on the deer study committee for this area.I helped capture and collar deer here and we did a head count last winter.I have been on the committee for the last five years and have been involved in Wisconsins Conservation Congress for the last 40.So yes I probably know as much as the local game biologist.Unfortanatly our DNR would rather sell deer tags then actually listen to the folks who have been out in the field.

another thought I had about this:

do we know the guy actually drew or is he just saying it?

we know the Wyoming game & fish probably won't confirm/deny who did or did not draw a tag so this guy could just be blowing smoke to get people worked up....

Tim you very well could be correct.

That is possible.

The article states 650,000 people oppose the hunt. Who gives a shit what they think. Most don't live in or pay taxes in Wyoming. States need to manage there own wildlife as they see fit . Not what the federal government thinks or a bunch of tree huggers. Can't wait for MT to open a season as we have way to many grizzlies out here who have lost there fear of man. Not sure how tags could be saved for people who are actually going to hunt and not those just trying to flood the lottery to get tags they are not going to use.

quote:

Not sure how tags could be saved for people who are actually going to hunt and not those just trying to flood the lottery to get tags they are not going to use.

The easiest way is issue more then one tag then allow the hunt to continue unless the number of bears needed are shot.

Or issue more then one tag and then charge a trophy fee equal to the price of the lic. on the bears shot.

The way this hunt is structured is more to please the anti's then the hunters.

There are ways if one has an imagination.

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com...3b-d030db7315eb.html



Two no-gun shooters win griz hunting tags

'Shoot 'Em With a Camera' campaign cuts into number of chances a grizzly will be killed.
By Mike Koshmrl 1 hr ago

Nature and wildlife photographer Tom Mangelsen won one of 22 tags to hunt a grizzly bear this fall. Mangelsen, who drew tag number 8 in the draw announced Thursday, said he does not plan to use the tag to harvest a grizzly bear.


The second person who will have the option of hunting grizzly bears near Jackson Hole this fall has no intention of shooting and killing one of the bruins, anti-hunting activists say.

Jackson wildlife photographer Tom Mangelsen made a splash in the news around the world last week when he beat long odds, drawing No. 8 on an “issuance list” that will allow up to 10 grizzly hunters, one at a time, into the field starting Sept. 15. But another Jackson resident is actually better positioned, and drew the No. 2 spot on the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s list.

“She’s going to go out and shoot them with a camera,” said Ann Smith, a longtime Jackson resident and conservationist who helped spring the “Shoot ’Em With a Camera” campaign.


The successful applicant’s identity is public information, though the News&Guide is choosing not to name her or other hunters who lucked out in the draw. Manglesen identified himself.The woman did not respond to requests for an interview.

The Shoot ’Em group’s tactic was to attract nonhunters to apply for Wyoming’s first grizzly hunting season in 44 years. It appears the nonhunting cohort was awarded at least two licenses.

“We know we have two, and we hope we have more,” said Judy Hofflund, one of the organizers. “We have no way of knowing how many licenses we got. I wish there was a way of knowing.”

One successful applicant the movement’s five women founders don’t have to wonder about is Mangelsen, who learned of his fortune from colleague Sue Cedarholm on Thursday morning.

“When Sue told me that I got No. 8, I about fell off my chair,” Mangelsen said. “I just thought, ‘How can that be possible?’”

He was up against 3,500 Wyoming residents and 2,327 nonresidents vying for a shot at the tags valid where most of Wyoming’s grizzlies roam. Another 948 residents and 530 nonresidents applied to hunt in “hunt area 7,” on the peripheries of the greater Yellowstone area where relatively fewer bears are found. It’s unclear if any nonhunters were awarded licenses for that area.

Wyoming wildlife managers say the activists’ tactics are legal, though they’re not thrilled that it’s taking away opportunities from hunters.


“Definitely, we have no problem welcoming anybody who buys a license,” Wyoming Game and Fish Department spokesman Renny MacKay said.

If Wyoming’s hunt isn’t first snagged by a lawsuit, the most effective way for activists to disrupt it, ironically, will be to compel their camera-toting followers to actually lethally shoot a bear. Once a female grizzly is killed by a licensed hunter, the season ceases.

Smith has conferred with the Jackson resident who is No. 2 on the issuance list, and a purposely killed female, she said, is not in the cards.

“She would never do that,” Smith said. “She’s horrified at the whole idea.”

Contact Mike Koshmrl at 732-7067, env@jhnewsandguide.com or @JHNGenviro.

quote:

“We have no way of knowing how many licenses we got. I wish there was a way of knowing.”

Yeah right.... There is no way any of those do-gooders could keep their mouth shut if they drew a tag.

Help!
Now I am really confused. 6500 WY residents paid a paltry sum to "apply" for the grizzly hunt. 22 people actually drew the tag. They will pay the state $600 to purchase a grizzly tag. The season starts with #1 on the list having 10 days to shoot a bear. On the 11th day he loses his turn to #2. And so on. On the 11th day he loses his turn to #2. And so on.
So the season could end if #1 shoots a bear on the first day.

Frankly.
That is the most retarded system I can imagine. Please tell me I'm wrong.

A simple solution to this situation is to make the fee for application much higher. The state keeps all the money.

Ski+3
Kalispell, MT

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
Help!
Now I am really confused. 6500 WY residents paid a paltry sum to "apply" for the grizzly hunt. 22 people actually drew the tag. They will pay the state $600 to purchase a grizzly tag. The season starts with #1 on the list having 10 days to shoot a bear. On the 11th day he loses his turn to #2. And so on. On the 11th day he loses his turn to #2. And so on.
So the season could end if #1 shoots a bear on the first day.

Frankly.
That is the most retarded system I can imagine. Please tell me I'm wrong.

A simple solution to this situation is to make the fee for application much higher. The state keeps all the money.

Ski+3
Kalispell, MT

Yep; if a sow is killed even by the first hunter the season is over. They have to do it that way to be able to control what is taken sex wise. It's better IMHO to start this first year on the cautious side with a low number of possible animals taken and that's exactly how they have planned this hunt.

So what is the total number of animals allowed to be taken? and how long is the season?

ONE is the total. The season ends after one bear is harvested...

22 times 10 is 220 days available to find one grizzly.

This doesn't make sense. Where's Waldo?

Ski+3

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
ONE is the total. The season ends after one bear is harvested...

22 times 10 is 220 days available to find one grizzly.

This doesn't make sense. Where's Waldo?

Ski+3

You really need to go read the Regulation on the Wyoming G&F website because what you stated isn't even close to what is happening! It has the season dates and there are 6 units where the season would end when one sow is killed or the boar limit is met, or the season closing date is met, whichever comes first. Those units are considered the core area near Yellowstone and Teton National Parks, which contain a large number of bears. There are also units 7 & 8 that are under a completely different quota setup and a number of hunters will be in the field at one time. Unit 7 adjoins the eastern boundaries of units 1-6 and unit 8 is an even bigger area east of that boundary and goes all the way east over to the east side of the Big Horn Mountains. The latter two units have very few bears and where the bears are not wanted at all due to the human population, etc. The only thing you got correct is that in units 1-6 there will be one hunter allowed in the field at a time for a maximum of 10 days and then the next in the lottery will get his ten days and on down the line until the quota is met or the season closes.

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
ONE is the total. The season ends after one bear is harvested...

No, the season ends if ONE SOW is harvested. That is why the anti hunting nit-wits talked about shooting a sow to end the season and protect the boars.

I guess what I am trying to understand is what is the value of having say tag # 40 let alone tag # 90 if there is a quota of like 22 bears (assuming no sows are shot) and a 10 day hunt period per hunter.

The ability to claim having been drawn for the hunt even if the person does not get to hunt.

For some folks, the mere fact that a hunt was made available for a Grizzly and that out of how ever many applicants, they got drawn even though they may have not had the chance to hunt, it is still pretty special.

I am referring to the actual value of being able hunt.

Quite frankly it's pretty ludicrous to be excited about being #90 in line if they is only 1% chance the #45 is being able hunt.

Anybody who feels special about being # 90 when it means nothing has issues.

To each their own opinion.

I have saved hunting licenses from Colorado and Arizona even though I did not kill anything. It is the little things that matter to some folks.