Tag Archives: grizzly bear

Idaho Commission OKs Issuing 1 Grizzly Bear Permit For Fall Hunt

THE FOLLOWING IS A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Idaho Fish and Game commissioners on Thursday, May 10 approved a hunting season for grizzly bears in a portion of eastern Idaho with one tag offered.

WITH GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM — THIS ONE WAS PHOTOGRAPHED IN THE PARK’S HAYDEN VALLEY — LONG SINCE RECOVERED, IDAHO FISH AND GAME MANAGERS WILL OFFER A SINGLE TAG TO HUNT ONE IN THE GEM STATE, THOUGH OFFICIALS CAUTION THE SEASON MAY BE CHALLENGED IN COURT, IN WHICH CASE THE TAGHOLDER’S MONEY WOULD BE REFUNDED. (NPS)

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population has met federal recovery criteria since the early 2000s. The state of Idaho and its professional wildlife managers played a key part in this population’s recovery, in partnership with other states, and federal, tribal and local governments. In 2017 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took the population off of the Endangered Species Act list, and Idaho will continue to responsibly manage the population in coordination with Wyoming and Montana now that federal protections are lifted.

The conservation strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly population includes hunting as a management tool when the population is more than 600 bears.

The 2017 population estimate is 718 grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone “demographic monitoring area” (DMA), which encompasses suitable grizzly habitat in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. The DMA includes all of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, but no hunting will occur in either national park. The population in the DMA has been stable over the last decade with annual population estimates in the monitoring area ranging between 694 and 757 grizzlies.

Idaho grizzly bear hunt

Fish and Game will offer one tag for the opportunity to hunt a grizzly bear in a controlled hunt, random drawing limited to Idaho residents. Application period will be June 15 through July 15. Resident hunters who applied for any other controlled hunt in 2018 may also apply for the grizzly bear hunt.

The hunt will run Sept. 1 through Nov. 15. No baiting or hound hunting will be allowed for the grizzly bear hunt. Grizzly bears, like bull moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goat, limit tags to successful hunters “once in a lifetime.”

Because actual implementation of the grizzly hunt may be subject to a pending lawsuit in federal court, hunters applying should beware that the hunt could be canceled, in which case the pre-paid tag fees would be refunded, but the controlled hunt application fees would not.

How is the number of bears available for harvest determined?

Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have agreed to manage the Yellowstone grizzly bear population in the DMA between 600 and 748 bears, which corresponds to the average population from 2002 to 2014. No hunting will occur if the population is below 600 bears in the DMA.

Scientists have determined how much mortality on male and female bears can occur while managing for a sustainable population. Hunting can occur if the measured and predicted annual grizzly mortality is less than the total allowable mortality in any given year. Hunting opportunity is determined by subtracting the known and predicted annual mortality from the total allowable mortality for the population.

Why a single tag?

Idaho, Montana and Wyoming allocate available hunting opportunity based on the proportion of land each state has within the DMA (excluding Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks where no hunting is allowed).

Idaho has 8 percent of the land in the DMA, and in 2018, 8 percent of the total allowable mortality available for hunting represents one male bear.

Avoiding female bears

Fish and Game biologists will work with the person who receives the tag to ensure the hunter understands rules, hunt boundaries and how to distinguish male bears from females.

At any given time, roughly half the female bears will be with cubs or juvenile bears, none of which are legal to harvest under the rules of the hunt. That means about 75 percent of the unaccompanied adult bears are male, and the identification training provided by the department will help the hunter avoid harvesting a female bear.

History

Grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has recovered since being listed as endangered in the 1970s. The population has increased from less than 200 in the 1970s to the current 718 bears. Biologists saw consistent population growth (between 4.2 percent and 7.6 percent annually) from 1983 to 2002, then slower population growth (.3 percent to 2.2 percent) from 2002 to 2014. Biologists say the slowed growth rate and stable population in the monitoring area suggest the population is at, or near, the carrying capacity of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

The Greater Yellowstone population met the recovery criteria outlined in a 1993 recovery plan by the early 2000s. State and federal agencies finalized a long-term conservation strategy in 2007, and the Yellowstone grizzlies were removed from federal protection that year.

In 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed legal challenges to delisting, finding that regulatory mechanisms were adequate to support the recovered Yellowstone population. But the court ordered the bears to go back on Endangered Species list until the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed if a decline in whitebark pine threatened the bear population’s recovery.

The bears were delisted again in July, 2017, and Fish and Game proposed its grizzly hunting season in March, 2018. The proposal garnered more than 900 comments to Fish and Game’s website during the public comment period in April and early May. Comments greatly varied, but the majority favored moving forward with a grizzly hunt.

Reaction To Zinke’s Call To Restore Grizzly Bears To North Cascades

Last Friday morning’s announcement by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke that he wanted to “accelerate” the federal review of proposals to restore grizzly bears in Washington’s North Cascades led to a spectrum of reaction.

SECRETARY OF INTERIOR RYAN ZINKE SPEAKS BEFORE REPORTERS AND OTHERS ON MARCH 23, 2018, ON RESTORATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS TO THE NORTH CASCADES. (CHASE GUNNELL)

Here is a sampling:

Ethan Lane, executive director, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council, via AgInfo.net

“We are extremely disappointed with the Department of the Interior’s support to introduce Grizzly Bears to the North Cascades of Washington. For more than a year we have heard the Secretary talk about being a better neighbor, but unfortunately actions speak louder than words. Reintroducing as many as 200 man-eating predators into an area already reeling from exploding gray wolf populations is anything but neighborly. This decision won’t just impact ranchers – it’s a blow for the entire North Cascades ecosystem, the safety of locals and visitors, and the local economy, too. In fact, the only beneficiaries of an action like this will be the radical environmental activists that support this type of ill-advised ecosystem tinkering.”

Mitch Friedman, executive director, Conservation Northwest, via Skagit Valley Herald

“It’s been 30 years — it was in ‘88 that we started advocating for grizzly bear recovery. That’s quite a span of time … to have a horizon for success is astounding.”

Rob Smith, regional director, National Parks Conservation Association, via Seattle PI

“We’ve lost almost a year of progress toward grizzly recovery in the North Cascades, so we’re relieved that Secretary Zinke has decided to take the finger off the pause button and allow park and wildlife experts to continue their work.

“Wildlife science as well as public opinion support restoration of the grizzly bear to the North Cascades for ecosystem health and as a legacy for future generations.”

Sarah Ryan, executive vice president, Washington Cattlemen’s Association, via AgInfo.net

“The idea of dumping man-eating Grizzly Bears from helicopters into Washington National Parks has not been well thought out. Once the Grizzly Bears walk out of the park into rural towns and private and state lands, the communities surrounding the recovery area can be greatly impacted. Already the livestock community has had little to no help with the management and recovery of wolves in the North Cascades, and cannot accept and welcome another federally listed apex predator with no monetary help from the federal government. What is the reasoning behind thinking a recovery like this can be accomplished without the support of the ranching, logging, recreation, and natural resource based communities or consideration for public safety?”

Steven Rinella, The Meateater, via Twitter

If he follows through on this, this is big and great news.

U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-4), via Yakima Herald Republic

“I am disappointed that Secretary Zinke did not first speak with me about his support of reintroducing grizzly bears in the North Cascades. Local communities in Central Washington thought reintroducing grizzly bears was a bad idea when proposed by the (Obama) administration and it would be just as bad an idea if entertained by the (Trump) administration.”

Chase Gunnell, communications director, Conservation Northwest, via email

As a lifelong Washingtonian and a hunter who carried a mule deer out of the wilderness of the North Cascades last year, alone and in the dark, I welcome the restoration of this iconic native species in this country that remains wild enough to sustain it. Despite high-quality habitat, the science is clear that because of isolation from other grizzly populations in Canada and the Rocky Mountains, grizzlies will not recover in the North Cascades on their own. It will take a few straightforward precautions, and some courage, but the North Cascades is big and rugged enough for both people and grizzly bears.

Salient thoughts from our social media post announcing the news, via facebook.com/NorthwestSportsmanMagazine

Daniel Martin Im one more Skagit valley republican that backcountry hunts and off trail backpacks frequently throughout the year that supports restoration of the grizzly. I’m more worried about wolves then grizzlies, it just comes down to a simple fact of human interference and over trapping, if we ( humans) have impacted the wildlife it’s our duty as humans to be Stewards of that wildlife and balance it as best as possible whether its predator or its prey. Yeah I would like tons more deer and elk walking around so I can hunt them easier but that’s being a little selfish when the last generations of humans over hunted and removed grizzlies from the landscape in the first place. No one knows if deer and elk populations will plummet when grizzlies come back but it seems that Wyoming,Alaska, and Montana are doing just fine with grizzlies around. Yeah I do think wolves need to be hunted and kept in check so they don’t deplete the game population and eventually I would want the grizzly to be managed the same.
Ralph Lane Jr. Well Daniel, we could just all move to Georgia and let the predators and rascally politicians have this place! Would that suit? The West was settled by humans FOR humans. If the populations of the indigenous went down in some cases, so be it. Adding more predatory animals back to the environment now will only result in more confrontation between them and humans and guess who LOSES?
…..
Kari Anne Hirschberger Daniel, that’s fine to be open to grizzlies inhabiting the Cascades, but it’s an entirely different issue regarding introducing them. The population in BC is heathy and they have not taken advantage of the open territory for a reason… and it isn’t due to humans hunting or otherwise minimizing their opportunities; we do NOT have the species of moths they take advantage of for a high protein source like in Montana… with the wildfires the region has seen in the past decade we definitely do not have high enough denisoty of white bark pine, and we don’t have the high density of bison and elk to take advantage of either… so what do you think these critters will eat? The habitat availability isn’t an issue… it’s the quality that has kept the numbers low. I feel introducing them sets them up for failure; either they directly compete with native black bear, or migrate to lowlands where the propensity for negative human interactions is high. Let them migrate back into the Cascades if they choose, but forcing their hand does good for nobody in my opinion. ?????
Daniel Martin Thanks for a well written opinion Kari Anne Hirschberger. I understand your point as I have listened to many a podcast and biologist speaking to your point. As far as moths and large ungulate prey is concerned as a high protein diet ( which they no doubt are) the moth issue as far as white bark Pine goes is two sided. The opinion that it is a big impact on bear diet and not a big impact on a bear diet is a debate. If biologists from our state ( which I have not heard any negatives as far as grizzly obtaining enough protein ) have good facts leading them to say they would survive fine then I trust there opinion. Grizzlies do compete with black bears in a balanced eco system, they displace black bears as they are supposed to do. There are so many meadows in the north cascade range full of bear food, and there is plenty of scavenging opportunities for all bears. I’m not worried that grizzlies will have a lack of food. As you know The reason a brown bear is so large is because of the abundance of marine protein ( salmon, shellfish etc) the brown bear is just a coastal grizzlie. The actual Alaskan grizzly which is a interior bear doesn’t naturally have the same protein access as the coastal bear and survives off vegetation and scavenging. The north Cascade’s grizzly would have a very similar habitat.
Also as a theory wouldn’t it be more of a incentive for wdfw to put more resources into growing our elk herds, mule deer herds.

North Cascades Grizzly Restoration Planning To Push Ahead Again

UPDATED 1:07 p.m. Friday, March 23, 2018

Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke told reporters this morning that the federal review of options to restore grizzlies in Washington’s North Cascades will push forward again.

THE NORTH CASCADES RISE OVER A SHARP TURN ON HIGHWAY 20. (ANDY WALGAMOTT)

Appearing at North Cascades National Park Complex headquarters in Sedro-Woolley, Zinke’s statements came after an apparent pause this past winter of the environmental review of four options for bringing the bears back to this mountainous country.

He said the process should wrap up this year — a Department of Interior press release says by late summer — and that he feels grizzlies can be returned to the recovery region.

“I’m in support of the great bear,” Zinke said in televised comments. “I’m also supportive of doing it right. This is not reintroduction of a rabbit. This is reintroduction of a grizzly, and when done right by professional management, the grizzly can return harmony to the ecosystem and the grizzly can be a great example of how we do it right. Doing it wrong can adversely affect visitor experience and it can also adversely our ability to manage the land.”

Bear advocates were pleased by the news, and it’s likely that local tribes are happy as well, as the Tulalips have supported restoration.

However, national, state cattlemen’s and public-lands ranching associations expressed disappointment.

The four options that the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service put out for comment in January 2017 ranged from no action — allow them to return themselves from southern British Columbia — to expedited reintroduction and a goal of 200 animals between the Canadian border and Snoqualmie Pass.

Zinke said that, not to prejudge the outcome of the review, but “the winds are favorable.”

WDFW participated in coming up with the EIS, but doesn’t have a position on any, a spokesman said.

It’s probable that there are no actual grizzlies in the North Cascades at present, or only one or two.

The secretary appeared for about 12 minutes and spoke for nine of them. He also spoke about his push to reorganize federal natural resource agencies.