The Governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead, recently wrote a letter to Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar asking him to remove the federal protection awarded to grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. Mead also asked the DOI to expedite the review for federal protections for Yellowstone bear populations to under two years.

Mead quotes grizzly bear scientists and other experts when he says the species has “unquestionably recovered within the Yellowstone Ecosystem,” as he wrote in the letter to the DOI.

The bear count within Yellowstone Park and in adjacent recovery areas is estimated to be at about 600 grizzlies.

Mead wants the state of Wyoming to regain full control of managing its bear population. He says bear recovery is costly in Wyoming; in two senses of the word. For one, Wyoming’s investment in the recovery effort has already totaled $35 million over the past 28 years. Currently, the average annual cost to conserve grizzlies approaches $2 million. But finances are not the only costly repercussion.

Mead also cited four fatal Yellowstone bear incidents in the last two years that occurred in or near the park. He also mentioned bear-related property damage that was “disturbing and costly.”

Those who want to keep the bear federally protected cite the widespread infection of whitebark pine tree disease. Whitebark pine seeds is an important food source for grizzly bear and bear advocates are concerned that if the tree is wiped out by the disease, the bear population could go with it. State and federal wildlife managers say grizzlies appear to be adapting fine by finding other food sources, as mentioned in the Yellowstone Gate.

In his letter, Gov. Mead addresses the concerns about whitebark pine trees and points out that although there was a committee directed to study how the whitebark pine relates to grizzly bear populations, it would take two years to complete the study which is “too long and the cost is too great.”

Allowing the state to control its grizzly population would open the prospect of a new hunting season. Critics of delisting the animal want the bear to remain under federal protection until Yellowstone bear populations rebound to a greater degree. They expressed concern that hunting the grizzly bear might hinder grizzlies’ continuing recovery.

long over due,at least in my corner of Wyoming.
The past 30 days of spring bear hunting,
I've seen 25 grizzly bears.
All within 1-3 miles of a main highway.

IMO if we are going to "save" the lower 48 grizzly
we have to think about introducing them into other suitable habitat.
This is where the screaming will start...
Colorado,Utah and New Mexico all have habitat that will support the griz.
The state of Wy. has a surplus of bears and we are moving them back and forth across the state
when they get in trouble.
They are "getting in trouble" because the habitat is saturated and there is no room to expand.
Been living around them for the past 40 yrs
camping, hunting, hiking.For the most part they are a good neighbor.
In those 40 yrs with 100s of encounters, only 2 times have I felt the encounter could
"go south".
Magnificent animal and makes any country they inhabit a little wilder.

good luck with this one - i can hear the anti's screaming bloody murder already

I enjoy my rides into the Thorofare and spending time in Grizz country. That said, I hope WY gets to manage them and keep them in Wyoming. Utah has enough problems without adding grizzlies to the mix....

RavenR- Within 1-3 miles of a highway? Road hunter. hahaha Your posts make this site worth looking at; like the photo stories you post. I would enjoy a RavenR Grizzly Hunt thread.

quote:

I would enjoy a RavenR Grizzly Hunt thread.

So would I MC, so would I

In the late 60s and early 70s in Montana, 25 grizzly lisences were given out each year. It was a lot safer to hike in the Bob Marshall Wilderness by yourself where the grizzlies were shot at a bit (not much) then camp in Glacier Park surrounded by people where they were kinda scary.

I'm for very limited grizzly hunting in the lower 48 and for increasing their range to what it used to be in the Rocky Mountains. If a grizzly becomes addicted to killing cows or sheep on private land (not National Forest or BLM land) then a problem animal tag should be applied for and given out.

I'm not a PETA type, I hunted and killed a brown bear in Alaska last year. I just think we lose something by not having the grizzlies here in Colorado. I'd love to see them introduced here and prosper to the point where some limited tags could be given out here as well.

As a non-combatant, my only thought is if there is a move to let grizzlies re-establish themselves to their former range where practical, their manmagement needs to be handled by the states and controlled hunting, Sport/Depredation, has to be part of the plan.

JMOFWIIW.

Absolutely, just like the wolves!

600? Who's counting them? Has to be the same guys that do the wolf count...

I grew up 40 miles north of Jackson Hole. The places I roamed as a kid, to hunt & hike, I wouldn't travel now without two forms of grizzly deterrent - bear spray & my .44 mag.

They need a healthy dose of fear for man & we could all enjoy the woods a little more.

I think their high numbers are as much of a decline for elk and moose as the wolves.Especially moose. Think about it, 600+ grizzlys, all in moose country, they eat just one moose calf each during the course of the year, that is almost as many moose as hunters take.