Report issued due to the 2008 spike in Greater Yellowstone grizzly deaths-
Numerous methods are identified, but a smaller number give more “bank for the buck” (the buck being not so much money as political or cultural resistance).
Yellowstone Mortality and Conflicts Reduction Report. IGBST. June 5, 2009
Note: I hope discussion of this doesn’t result in another long debate over pepper spray. RM
Note 2. We had a long discussion on “Greater Yellowstone grizzly deaths pass lethal limit under delisting,” beginning last November (2008).
Ralph Maughan
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
“Note: I hope discussion of this doesn’t result in another long debate over pepper spray. RM”
I am almost positive it will!
LOL
I read most of the report and noticed that a research team captured 9 Grizzly bears and that 2 of them died from infection at the tranquilizer injection site. Sounds like pretty sloppy research techniques. I hope they fired those researchers. Do they change needles or protective gloves when they are darting bears? Every photo I see of park researchers, shows them handling animals with bare hands and no surgical masks.
I was in Yellowstone over the Mother’s day weekend. There was a Grizzly at South Twin Lake with a paw full of porcupine quills. I was told that he would just have deal with it himself as it was park policy not to interfere with nature. It seems they can interfere with nature everytime someone dreams up a new research project, but non-research animals are allowed to suffer and die.
I just kind of skimmed it, but some of those might be good ways to reduce mortality.
Important omission—if they wanted to reduce hunter-related grizzly bear mortality during surprise encounters, they should have told hunters how close to let a charging grizzly get before shooting
You two are so fake it makes me sick.
Who is fake mikarooni?
Mikarooni–any thoughts on the subject at hand, the bear study teams ideas for reducing grizzly bear mortality?
ProWolf & Ralph–Which ideas have merit?
I thought it was funny that when the study team had a chance to make a legit case for hunters to use bear spray–going back to retrieve a carcass–they overlooked it.
No surprises–you’d know where the carcass was, and could observe the area before moving in. No need for stealth, the hunters can make noise to alert a bear of their presence. You can take out your bear spray and haVE it in your hand, ready to use before you begin to approach the carcass.
I think bear spray is probably one of the best ideas. I will admit that a person probably does not always have access to it, but an effort should be made to use it. Linking mortality to a grizzly season is good, I am assuming that means having a the quota depend on how many bears have died that year. I think the ID efforts are also important and that a person should not be allowed to hunt black bears in an area with grizzlies without passing an ID test. While the two bears are similar, there is no reason for someone to mistake them, just the same as mistaking a wolf and coyote.
The “ProWolf” response was a dead giveaway. You guys are just a couple of shills trolling in tandem. You’re real conservationists like Wayne LaPierre supports the ESA. You’re both disgusting.
Mikarooni, what are you talking about?
Pro,
He’s just a pissed off extremist, I’m not sure he knows who he is talking about.
Doesn’t sound like it. If he has even skimmed any of my posts he would be able to tell that I support conservation.