Adult male grizzly was shot May 7 near the Cave Falls Road-

Idaho spring black bear season began April 15, and the first Greater Yellowstone grizzly death of the season has been logged. An eleven-year old male griz was shot by someone (so far unidentified) just off the Cave Falls Road near the southwest corner of Yellowstone Park.  In a news release, Idaho Fish and Game said they were investigating and promised any information gathered would be released.

The location of the illegal killing is generally flat with meadows where bears come to dig early season roots, bulbs, and rodents.  It is often hard to distinguish grizzlies from black bears, especially early in the year when they are thin from hibernation. Critics wonder why an area so rich with grizzlies is open to spring black bear hunting.

In recent years, U.S. Forest Service  road closures after the completion of timber harvest has made the general area safer for grizzlies. The Cave Falls road (gravel) runs close to the southwest corner of the Park, dead-ending inside the Park at Cave Falls.

The death of a male grizzly is generally not regarded as serious as that of a fertile female, especially one with cubs.

 

 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides.

71 Responses to Grizzly next to Yellowstone Park shot in Idaho spring bear hunt

  1. avatar Barb Rupers says:

    What do hunters do with black bears they kill in the spring? I wouldn’t think there is much to eat. Is the fur still in good condition? Is it to exercise or train their dogs? Or perhaps just for fun?

    Grizzly or black bear it seems a waste of wildlife that could be appreciated by several others.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      I could never figure spring bear hunts except that it is easy shooting sleepy bears on newly grassed hillslopes or on open meadows.

      • Ralph, most of the hunters are too lazy to actually hunt the bears in the spring. They do what they are allowed to do by Idaho law: Fill a barrel full of left overs from the nearest bakeries and fast food places and then sit over it in a tree stand and shoot the bears when they have their mouths full of french fries.

    • avatar Tim says:

      Spring bear are the best to hunt. They have the same amount of meat they had the previous fall and less fat to deal with. The hides are also the best in the spring. Long hair and no rubs. I doubt many bears are killed because they were sleepy. Thats a good one. 😉

    • avatar Jay says:

      Waste of bear meat is condoned in Idaho (along with meat not associated with “quarters” of deer and elk)–see page 97 of the regulations:

      Hunters are required to remove and care for the edible meat of big game animals, except black bears, mountain lions and gray wolves. This includes the meat from hind quarters as far down as the hock, meat of the front quarters as far down as the knee and meat along the backbone which is the loin and tenderloin.
      It does not include meat of the head or neck, meat covering or between the ribs, internal organs, or meat on the bones after
      close trimming.

    • avatar Logan says:

      Spring hides are the very best.

      There is still a lot of meat on them in the spring.

  2. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    Tim,

    Do you have good evidence that the bears only lost fat and not lean?

    It is well known that bears are lethargic for a period when they leave the den. Many bears are still denned on April 15 when the hunt begins. From news reports in Montana some grizzlies were still denned the first week of May this year.

    • avatar Tim says:

      Ralph,
      Just my personal experience. I use bear baits to train my hounds with and use the same locations every spring and fall. I don’t kill any bears so I have had the same bears coming in for years. They never seem to be smaller and the younger bears only seem to get larger. Their long hair can be deceiving sometimes though. I use game cameras to identify the different bears.
      We had a pretty mild winter here in north Idaho. I know of one bear killed late April that still had 2 inches of fat on its back. I do have one bear that showed up recently that is probably around 3-350. It looks a little skinnier from last fall.

  3. avatar John says:

    Why does the IDFG have a voluntary bear identification program. It should be mandatory for successful passing the bear ID exam for obtaining a black bear hunting permit. They state it is important since grizzly is a federally protected species. Is that too much of a burden for the hunter to pass the exam as part of the permit. The exam is relatively simple.

  4. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    Again, guns should not be allowed in the National Parks!!!!! Is this location in the park or just near it? Again, a buffer zone around Yellowstone is called for.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Ida Lupines,

      I wouldn’t agree. There are some small ranches and summer homes in the area along the Idaho part of the Cave Falls road. Look at it on Google Earth.

      • avatar Ida Lupines says:

        How about in areas where a buffer zone wouldn’t impose on residents? Or perhaps a voluntary arrangement/conservation easement with the landowners?

  5. avatar Kathy Vile says:

    No need to wonder why this bear was killed. After all it is Idaho! They love to kill anything with four legs there. Also they are planning a large bird kill. Nothing is safe in Idaho.

  6. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    If and when the grizzly bears are ever delisted, the spring hunt needs to be done away with or restricted in some way. It would seem contrary to management to have hunts when females are raising young or when all bears have just emerged from hibernation. How can this be ‘sustainable’ in modern times?

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Ida Lupines,

      I agree. This part of the Targhee National Forest is to be set aside as part of the core grizzly bear conservation area, which I think is too small anyway.

      Even now grizzlies are supposed to have priority, but they let cattle graze far up (eastward) on the Cave Falls road area.

      • I went to cave falls a couple of years ago. Beautiful place.
        I talked to an employee at one of the resorts on the Wyoming side of the Grassy Lakes pass. He claimed that the U.S. Geological Survey and the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game take their “problem” Wyoming Grizzlies over the hill into Idaho and release them there. He said they hauled their “problem” Grizzlies in their barrel traps right by where he worked on their way to be dumped in Idaho.
        The Grizzly shot in Idaho might have been a Wyoming “transplant”.

    • avatar Logan says:

      It is dissapointing that another grizzly has been killed in Idaho. The details of this incident are still unknown, at least I haven’t found any good information yet. Whether it was a mis-identification or a self defense we don’t yet know. In the case of misidentification, throw the book at them, they are irresponsible for firing at an animal they couldn’t properly identify. Misidentification is one of the reasons I don’t hunt waterfowl, I find it difficult to identify birds in flight, except for the obvious mallard.

      While most hunters prefer to spot and stalk hunt for bears, baiting does provide certain advantages to help protect mothers with young and grizzly bears. Baiting provides the best opportunity to observe a bear at close range long enough to observe any cubs and to ensure it is a black bear and not a grizzly.

      Hunters are slowly coming around to the idea of using bear spray as their primary form of protection in a self defense situation as it has been proven to be more effective, although the bravado crowd has its holdouts. Would you be forgiving of a hunter for killing a grizzly if he had first used bear spray and it failed to deter the bear?

  7. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    Larry Thorngren,

    The location of releases used to be available on the Web, and might still be. Someone might search.

  8. avatar topher says:

    I’m not surprised by the predictable comments. We seem to be missing some that wish mauling and death on the hunter.

  9. avatar Mike says:

    Another day, another idiot hunter.

  10. avatar Mike says:

    ++While most hunters prefer to spot and stalk hunt for bears, baiting does provide certain advantages to help protect mothers with young and grizzly bears. Baiting provides the best opportunity to observe a bear at close range long enough to observe any cubs and to ensure it is a black bear and not a grizzly.++

    It also conditions bears to human food and scents.

  11. avatar Shane says:

    I hunt bears in that area all the time. I have seen more grizzlies than blacks. Idaho should definitely require the bear identification test. That is too bad that this happened and it is a waste of a great animal. The number of grizzlies in that area has exploded. I love that grizzlies are thriving there. I know that this might be an unpopular belief on this website, but I think it would be beneficial to allow a hunting season for a very limited number of grizzlies if they are delisted. I believe hunters would view the grizzly in a much more favorable light if they were able to hunt them. Hunters would be down right angry knowing that someone poached a grizzly that could have been theirs. Hunters protect the game they can hunt. I know some of you do not understand this point of view, but it is true.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “I believe hunters would view the grizzly in a much more favorable light if they were able to hunt them”

      Gee Shane, and how well did that work out when hunters were allowed to hunt wolves? Are hunters getting down right angry knowing someone poached a wolf that could of been theirs?

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      ” I believe hunters would view the grizzly in a much more favorable light if they were able to hunt them. Hunters would be down right angry knowing that someone poached a grizzly that could have been theirs. Hunters protect the game they can hunt. I know some of you do not understand this point of view, but it is true.”

      Shane, where is the proof for this statement? Sure does not work for wolves. Recent article was posted about elk poaching in Idaho. Code of silence from elk hunters.

      http://m.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2014/apr/18/poachers-killing-more-idaho-game-animals-wolves-are-officials-say/

      • avatar Jake Jenson says:

        In order for me to buy this I’d need to read each incident report of the known unsolved cases listed in the article including all photographic evidence collected. The rest is only a might be taking place estimation.

        Over the years the best leads ending in arrests were because of hunters reporting sketchy activities. I’m wondering if the arrest percentages for poaching are increased as well.

        Out of season poaching is easy to spot because hunting is closed. The tough time to catch poaching activities is during the hunting seasons because nobody thinks much of shots fired and even if I see a hunter taking down an elk in elk season how the heck am I supposed to know if he’s legit or not?

        I’m hunting I’m not policing the forest. And the other point is this, I’m responsible for two poaching arrests, was shot at over one of them, and do not want anyone knowing of my involvement.

        Mainly because one of the parties arrested, the one that shot at myself was one hopped up on meth crazy SOB.

      • avatar Logan says:

        IDFG has published a statement in response to that article in the spokesman review stating that those comments about poaching are not true.

        http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=7107

        • avatar jon says:

          You are wrong Logan. Fish and game says they don’t know whether or not those claims about poaching are true, but they go on to say poaching does in fact impact big game populations.

    • avatar jon says:

      You and people like you are a scourge to wildlife. Hunters should view grizzlies as favorable if they are able to hunt them or not. What is the claim that hunters always tell you, they are conservationists and that they love wildlife? Your claim tells me that hunters don’t care about wildlife, only killing it.

    • avatar jon says:

      That’s wrong. Hunters don’t protect the “game” that they hunt. Hunters=killers of wildlife, not protectors of wildlife Shane.

    • avatar JB says:

      Hunting an animal definitely increases the revenue generated for F&G agencies, and to a lesser extent, conservation. However, the bulk of the evidence indicates that hunting predators does not increase tolerance for these species:

      http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/pubs/Treves_Bruskotter_2014.pdf

  12. avatar John says:

    I believe bear bating is not allowed in the unit where the grizzly was killed.

  13. avatar Shane says:

    I just wish people would open their minds. In all honesty hunters have a lot more respect for grizzlies than wolves. Wolves eat meat only! They spread like wild fire! Sorry Immer and Nancy no hard data on the way hunters feel, just experience from being out and about. Immer you can bet your life that hunters are extremely mad over an elk being poached. Too bad we can’t agree. I understand where you guys are coming from. I usually don’t post on sites like this, but I just figured I would give you guys the viewpoint of a hunter.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Shane,
      We can agree when all game, including wolves get the respect they deserve. There is a time and a place when/where these animals can be legally harvested. Your comment alluded that if grizzly were hunted, the animal would get more respect. Wolves don’t, elk, deer and moose are poached, and the situation with this bear, either poached or misidentified in which case a target was identified correctly, and illegally killed.

      Go on the hunting rags and moan there.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Identified incorrectly

      • avatar Logan says:

        Immer,
        If you go onto some of the hunting websites and search for articles and recent headlines on poaching you will find that hunters universally condemn poaching and are very angry about the wrist slaps and small fines that many poachers recieve.

        I agree with Shane that hunters would value the grizzly more if it were available as a game animal. You are right that wolves are not viewed that way but I believe wolves are an exception to that rule. It was because of the desire to preserve animals for future generations of hunters that hunters began the original conservation movements. Wolves are seen as a threat to that idea by many hunters and that is why I think they are an exception.

        • avatar JB says:

          Logan:

          A few issues with your statement. First, poaching may be “universally condemned” on blogs–but it still happens, in some places extensively. So there are a whole bunch of folks out there who don’t condemn poaching in practice.

          Second, I agree that wolves are viewed as a threat by hunters. The issue, as I see it, is that this view is not supported by data. In Immer’s neck of the woods (northern MN) there is no shortage of wolves, and yet hunting opportunity persists (and note: wolves were not hunted for four decades). Hunters appear to be afraid of the ‘big bad wolf’, which isn’t as big or as bad as they think.

          Finally, I think you overgeneralize about hunters’ motivations. I’m sure there are a number of selfless hunters out there concerned about the opportunity of future generations; but there are also a whole lot of selfish SOBs that just want to make sure they get theirs.

          Just trying to keep things honest.

          • avatar Logan says:

            JB,
            For the record, I don’t think there was anything dishonest in my comment or in yours.

            It’s just that there are exceptions to every rule, poachers being the exception to my statements. And selfish hunters the exception in yours.

            I really do believe that hunters in the west will eventually mellow out on the wolf issue. It will take time but I am already seeing some attitudes changing, mind you I said “some” not “a lot” or “many”. It will just take time.

  14. avatar Elk375 says:

    All you wildlife watchers and lovers here is Montana’s bear identification test. I took the test several years ago and got 100% on the first try. Be honest and see if you can get a 100% percent on the first try, it is harder than you think.

    http://apps.fwp.mt.gov/commed/publictesting/teststart?testid=559639

    • avatar JB says:

      93.3% – The one I missed had a broken link to the image, so I had to guess. Am I ready to come hunting with you, Elk?

      • avatar Barb Rupers says:

        That was informative and fun; I also missed one.

      • avatar Elk375 says:

        The end of May in this country, especially with a late spring, is the best time to hunt bear. Since you passed the test you can come out here and we will stop in the Bozeman FW&P’s office get you a bear tag and off to the West Fork of the Madison we go for 3 or 4 days of hunting. Besides bears there are elk, deer, moose and mountain sheep.

        Just because one passes the test does not mean they can tell the difference. Last summer in the late afternoon, I was coming down the Gallatin River between Bacon Rind and Specimen Creek, in Yellowstone Park, and there was a large brown colored bear 100 yards away. I spent a half an hour observing the bear and I never made a definite identification. It was a black bear but there was always a 5% chance it could have been a grizzly.

        • avatar JB says:

          Thanks, Elk. Fortunately, I’ve correctly identified every bear I’ve ever shot–with a camera–before taking those shots. I just wish my hunting friends would do the same. 🙂

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Got 100% 2 years ago and missed one question last year Elk but fact is “us wildlife watchers and lovers” aren’t the ones who really need to be required to take this test, we’re shooting wildlife with cameras 🙂

  15. avatar Gary Humbard says:

    Maybe its just me, but I consider “hunting” to include the killing of prey species, not predators. Today we know the importance that top predators provide to the ecosystems and that they function best when top predators are able to roam landscapes without the threat from humans. Unless human life is threatened or has been taken (the extemely rare predator grizzly) or there is known livestock predation, there is no need to kill predators. We also know methods to significantly reduce livestock predation.

    Predators kill other predators which keeps the system in balance. Also many of them are slow to reproduce (grizzlies) or have limited habitat requirements(wolverines and Canada lynx).

    I believe state agencies allow black bear and cougar hunting to provide income for the agency through license fees. Scientifically it make no sense.

    Except for a few big game units, elk populations are stable in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho and overall hunter success has not been reduced since the reintrouction of wolves. Are there not enough hunting opportunites for elk and deer?

    • avatar Logan says:

      Most hunters view themselves as predators and contributors to the natural ecosystem. AS you said “Predators kill other predators which keeps the system in balance” and so hunters also kill other predators.

      While overall state elk populations have only declined 10% (in Idaho), localized reductions have been more dramatic. In many areas the success rate has not declined because the total number of hunters and elk killed has so the success rate does not tell the whole story.

  16. avatar Shane says:

    HAHA you guys are fanatical! this site is a crack up! Wish me luck on my bear hunt! If I don’t get one I can always go back in the fall and hunt them along with 5 wolf tags in my pocket! Can’t wait to hunt grizzlies when they are off the list.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Ah, it seems “man who suffers greatly in the manhood dept” has left the building. Sad he will be taking his shortcomings out on wildlife.

      • avatar Elk375 says:

        Nancy you are starting to sound like Mike.

        • avatar Nancy says:

          Much rather sound like Mike than Shane, Elk 🙂

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            +++ Nancy

            When one gloats with the thought if killing, something is amiss.

            • avatar Nancy says:

              Native American Ten Commandments

              1. The Earth is our Mother, care for her.

              2. Honor all your relations.

              3. Open your heart and soul the the Great Spirit.

              4. All life is sacred, treat all beings with respect.

              5. Take from the Earth what is needed and nothing more.

              6. Do what needs to be done for the good of the all.

              7. Give constant thanks to the Great Spirit for each new day.

              8. Speak the truth: but only of the good in others.

              9. Follow the rhythms of nature: rise and retire with the sun.

              10. Enjoy lifes journey but leave no tracks.

              • avatar Logan says:

                While you list may be applicable to certain groups it was certainly not universal. Evidence suggests that Native Americans were not the selfless stewards of the land that 18th and 19th century writers romanticized about.

                “The myth persists that in 1492 the Americas were a sparsely populated wilderness, -a world of barely perceptible human disturbance.- There is substantial evidence, however, that the Native American landscape of the early sixteenth century was a humanized landscape almost everywhere. Populations were large. Forest composition had been modified, grasslands had been created, wildlife disrupted, and erosion was severe in places. Earthworks, roads, fields, and settlements were ubiquitous. With Indian depopulation in the wake of Old World disease, the environment recovered in many areas. A good argument can be made that the human presence was less visible in 1750 than it was in 1492.” William M. Denevan, Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin

    • avatar skyrim says:

      F#&%in’ Troll. Time to say bye bye to Shanerooooooooooooooooo.

    • avatar skyrim says:

      Moderators…
      Might I suggest if Trolls (Shane) are allowed here again, that a simple pointed response is also allowed..
      Just sayin’

  17. avatar Yvette says:

    Logan, I agree that we Native Americans are romanticized when it benefits someone’s cause. I call it the Hollywood version of the Indian. It borderlines a caricature of what many of us are and how we live. The problem with applying modern day descriptions, like ‘selfless stewards’ to the Indigenous people of this continent as they were when the early Europeans began settling is it’s comparing apples to oranges. Indigenous people on this continent most certainly did use the natural world to eat, drink, build homes, and towns. That is basic survival, so yes, the natural world was altered and it was a dynamic alteration that changed through time.

    As I’ve said before on this site, not all tribes are the same. There are vastly different cultures and belief systems among the remaining tribes. It always connects to the environment of the region from which a particular tribe originated. I will say that most tribes’ cultural and spiritual beliefs were more in tune with preservation and a connection to the world that surrounded them. The word ‘preservation’ being a modern day term to describe what ancestors knew to be ‘just as it is’. That was, and still is in many cases, their religion.

    Now for your second paragraph I have to ask, “who wrote that analysis of all Indigenous N. Americans”? The colonizers? It’s a whitewashed version of an interpretation by a descendant of the colonizers.

    – Was there human disturbance? Yes, I stated that already.
    – Were the populations large? I’d have to say if we’re talking about scale then scale within what? The continent? A region? A town? What? Apparently, it wasn’t so populated that this continent didn’t have room for millions of new immigrants.
    – “With Indian depopulation in the wake of old world disease, the environment recovered in many areas.” Now that is some serious whitewash, but I guess if it provides some sort of justification for the massive amount of environmental, ecological, extinctions, and genocidal damage that has been done to this continent since the arrival of Europeans then go for it. I would ask Mr. Denevan where is his data to support this claim? He could tell me the grass is purple, but that doesn’t make it so.
    – Human presence less visible in 1750 than in 1492? Bullshit. Does that presence include the cows, pigs and sheep imported and fenced in with the newly introduced concept of ‘private property’ and ‘fence in’ that came with European immigrants? Does that include the fear of the wild and untamed world the new immigrants faced here? Does it include the hysteria based on a couple of bible verses, and the European mythological faerie tales that caused wolves to be extinct in England by 1500? They brought that fear to this continent and began their extermination here. They dug ‘wolf pits’ and hung meat above the pit so the wolf would jump for the meant and fall into and be trapped in the pit. Then the new immigrants would proceed to torture the wolves by severing their hamstrings. They wanted the wolf to die slowly and painfully. So, I just wonder if this is what this Mr. William M. Denevan is referencing as ‘improving the environment’. If I am ever face to face with him I will be damned sure to ask him. I would like to meet this man.

    Two months ago my tribe had a second cultural symposium that covered the post-Mississippian period up to the removal (in case you don’t know, the ‘removal’ was under the Andrew Jackson administration, aka, Trail of Tears, which was NOT only the Cherokees). We had at least eight different historians with specialties in the Southeastern Indigenous people and sub-specialties in various topics. Our tribal cultural historians listened but also helped them and corrected them in some instances, and LOL, helped them with pronunciations of words in our language. At least, all of these historians grasped that the documents they research were written by the non-Indigenous and through their perceptions. I respect that, and they respected us.

    Our previous cultural symposium covered early periods up to through the Mississippian period. The multiple presentations were by anthropologists and archaeologists that specialized in the Mississippian peoples. It was fascinating.

    Logan, the real deal is, many of us Native Americans do have different cultural perspectives when it comes to the environment and natural world. It varies among tribes but it always goes back to culture and religion. Most of us are also not the Hollywood Indian (my term). Logan, all I can ask of you is to take some things that some people say with a grain of salt, and lastly, understand that much of the historical documents that historians study were written by Europeans through their eyes and perceptions.

  18. avatar Logan says:

    Yvette this is the wrong article under which to have this discussion so I appreciate your response. Your recommedation “Logan, all I can ask of you is to take some things that some people say with a grain of salt”. It is exactly that resason why I too don’t believe the caricature of the “Hollywood Indian” as you perfectly coined, and which appears to be touted in Nancy’s “ten commandment” comment.

    I think that the pre-colombian N. American population was much larger than originally thought. Most estimates were made based on 19th century densities and distributions of native people, however we know that european diseases were deadly to the natives. The spread of disease was much faster than the spread of colonization so that tribes which saw no european contact until the 19th century had already been ravaged by disease killing up to 90% of their population. It is during that period of low human population that the writer states that the environment would have recovered. By “human Presence” he is refering primarily to human population but also the environment altering of agriculture and wildlife predation. Even Lewis and Clark documented that wildlife populations were lower near established villages and greater in the borders between tribal territories. This and other recent articles I’ve read are contrary to much of what I learned in school, but they compelling and open a new line of possibilities I had never before considered.

    I acknowledge that our history was written by the europeans and through their eyes but the Natives did not write down any histories of which I am aware and can read and oral histories can untintentionally over time become changed through re-telling.

    It is articles like his that show that N. Americans were not a stagnant people but were advancing in technology. I find it very interesting to think about how different history would be if europeans didn’t come to America for another 300-400 years; at what stage of civilation would the N. American have been then? His article is not in any way a condoning of genocide or wasting natural resources, it raises the question of “Do we really know what an environment free of human influence looks like?” This is an important question as we strive to conserve our wildlands and the animals that inhabit them; are we trying to create something that never existed in the first place? For the most part it appears to me that our modern concept of conservation is to restore a pre-colonization environment, an environment that even then was impacted and alterd by man (though certainly less impacted than by european colonists).

    http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~alcoze/for398/class/pristinemyth.html

    I really need to start archiving the articles I read so I can more easily find them and post links, usually I read an article and move on.

    • avatar Leslie says:

      I find the whole argument about ‘altering the environment’ and human influence a la Emma Marris a false premise [i.e. where do we draw the line she says, 1860, 1492, 13,000 b.p.] All animals influence their environment. Really it has to do with over population and we’ve figured out a way to feed ourselves and beat diseases, which ancient peoples did not.

      Although the native populations in the Americas were in much greater numbers for sure before European diseases, America’s indigenous civilizations were many, and varied, throughout thousands of years. Mound Builders, Anasazi, etc.

      It’s probably more accurate to look at the stories and mythology than at the conclusions of people like Denevan to get an idea of cultural attitudes.

      • avatar Leslie says:

        Bringing it all back to bears, while different tribes had different attitudes towards killing bears or not, all of them viewed grizzlies in a sacred manner. One story that is told all over the Northern Hemisphere is The Woman who Married a Bear. That story tells how bears, being so similar to humans, taught humans what plants to eat and how to hunt.

        Today we have no sacred relationship with the Great Bear. And this influences our attitudes, which are simply pragmatic at best and profane at worst. This bothers me the most.

      • avatar Ida Lupines says:

        I agree, whatever was the case back before Columbus, you can be sure it wasn’t anything like what we’re doing today! It sounds like propaganda to justify today’s activities.

        Someone posted about the Obama administration rewriting habitat rules – please don’t let them anywhere near them!

        The administration is also proposing new policy designed to clarify how agencies decide to exclude certain lands from critical habitat designations. Private lands, particularly those where landowners have agreed to voluntarily protect species, would be given priority for habitat exclusions, according to the proposal.

        Very concerning. This has ramifications for the sage grouse, and other endangered animals. Who’s to say landowners would do it? It seems pretty unenforceable and worthless, and critical habitat will be lost.
        http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059999335

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Logan – have you read this book? Well worth the time.

      http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Givers-Indians-Americas-Transformed/dp/0449904962

  19. avatar Ed L says:

    Just like they banned the killing of all hawk like birds, because you can’t easily tell the rare ones from the common ones, bear hunting (black and grizzly) should be BANNED throughout grizzly county.

  20. avatar Leslie says:

    The best book I ever read about Grizzlies was by a 19th century hunter who later turned conservationist. He never baited, hunted with a one-shot gun, and pitted his wits against the Great Bear. His book was reprinted at the request of Frank Craighead who said it was the best book on the bear. The book is The Grizzly Bear: The Narrative of a Hunter-Naturalist by William Wright. I learned more about grizzly bears from that book and Craigheads book than from any other bear book.

  21. avatar HoofHugs says:

    It may not matter one way or the other to you, but the grizzly bear is on the list of alien, invasive species that is not supposed to exist in North America.

    • avatar SAP says:

      “the list”? Whose list? Are they planning to enforce it? Just curious . . .

      The “list” of critters that came over the Beringia land bridge is fairly long and includes humans. Does the “list” you speak of have a cut-off date for which species are “supposed” to be here?

      You do understand, don’t you, that grizzlies (Ursus arctos) walked here on their own, right? That makes them very different from creatures like Axis deer or spotted knapweed that were deliberately transported here by humans in the last 500 years.

      Fossils may not matter one way or the other to you, but they clearly indicate that grizzlies came to North America over 50,000 years ago. I’d say if they got here on their own that long ago, they’re “supposed” to be here.

    • avatar rork says:

      It’s so absurd that I’m curious about the provenance of this list too, or what the misunderstanding is.
      I suppose all our salmon species have gotta go too – might have originated from a brown trout/steelhead ancestor split that didn’t happen in N America, and then the damn fish started splitting off new species on our west coast. What a mess.

    • avatar JB says:

      Hmm… the only “lists” I know of are maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA.

      The USDA maintains the National Invasive Species Information Center– I looked at there vertebrate page and did not find grizzly bears (see: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/animals/main.shtml).

      The USFWS maintains a list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act; that list, like the USDA’s, does not contain the grizzy bear (http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/Current_Listed_IW.pdf).

  22. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    http://planetjh.com/2014/05/27/mead-pushing-jewell-to-quickly-delist-yellowstone-grizzlies/

    I hope we’ve learned something from the disastrous wolf delisting. Perhaps if the Western governor doesn’t get the results he’d like from our current Secretary of the Interior, he can make a phone call to his favorite senator and get him to put another rider on a must-pass bill. These guys are really something else, I was disgusted about Schweitzer’s mining interests too. If I were Secretary of the Interior, I’d make a paper airplane out of Mead’s letter and sail it right into the wastebasket.

Calendar

May 2014
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: