Grizzlies deaths at three-year high

[LongDraw]

All of the anecdotal and science based evidence aside;

If these protectionist groups get their way we would not be able to hunt in K -Country as it is considered one of the last vestages of grizzly habitat in Southern Alberta. Ultimately they want NO recreational access in these areas, especially during hunting season when some of these self defense bear killings occur and the bears are lower in the valleys feeding. All part of the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative.

Groups such as Action Grizzly Bear, CPAWS, Sierra Club, etc, may not come out and be anti-hunting per se, but the actions they want taken to insure the Grizzly Bears have blanket protection within the Y to Y would eliminate most recreational access in the Eastern Slopes including hunting.

 

[yyyyy]

Sounds to me like they're recovering just fine?How many children do you suppose will have to be mauled/eaten in schoolyards before they re-open the seasons?

Or we expanded more into their range and are now having more encounters. So maybe there aren't more. Maybe we are just closer.
Anecdotal is just that. It is not evidence. So this just means we have to work together on this with conservation scientists etc. Not just tell them they don't know what they are talking about and can stuff their stats up their ass because you saw one just last week.

 

[sheephunter]

All of the anecdotal and science based evidence aside;

If these protectionist groups get their way we would not be able to hunt in K -Country as it is considered one of the last vestages of grizzly habitat in Southern Alberta. Ultimately they want NO recreational access in these areas, especially during hunting season when these self defense bear killings occur and the bears are lower in the valleys feeding. All part of the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative.

Groups such as Action Grizzly Bear, CPAWS, Sierra Club, etc, may not come out and be anti-hunting per se, but the actions they want taken to insure the Grizzly Bears have blanket protection within the Y to Y would eliminate most recreational access in the Eastern Slopes.

No argument there but I'm not sure what's in our bag of tricks to counter their arguement...that's the big problem here. When you look at the big picture, habitat loss and degridation are the major causes of both the caribou and grizzly decline but in a resource based economy, addressing the real problem is a non-starter and hunters and backcountry users are an easy target. It's hard to argue that stopping hunting in K-Country wouldn't prevent some human cause mortality as it likely would. Is it enough to save the grizzly in Alberta? Likely not but what arguement do hunters use with land managers, wildlife managers and the general public to support this continued access? Ungulate population management would seem a natural but the government totally ignored their own experts on that one when they created Spray Valley Park. It an easy case to make for shutting hunters out of K-Country but it's a hard one to make to keep allowing us in there.

 

[sjemac]

Or we expanded more into their range and are now having more encounters. So maybe there aren't more. Maybe we are just closer.
Anecdotal is just that. It is not evidence. So this just means we have to work together on this with conservation scientists etc. Not just tell them they don't know what they are talking about and can stuff their stats up their ass because you saw one just last week.

Grizz in AB are being seen in areas they haven't been seen in decades. THEY are coming closer to us. The local guy killed this fall was killed in a woodlot on farmland just off a major highway.

 

[LongDraw]

I fully agree with all you have said and that is what frustrates the crap out of me and many others.

I remember when HWY 40 was a gravel road. If it was still a gravel road with no improved trails, hotels, RV parks, ski hills, hostels, etc.. but had some kind of protection such as a Wildland Park from the beginning the Grizzly bears, and all wildlife would be better off. Damn Olympics....

Self propelled hunters and backcountry users have almost no impact on the environment, just look at the Wilmore....

Anyways, just rambling.

 

[sheephunter]

I fully agree with all you have said and that is what frustrates the crap out of me and many others.

I remember when HWY 40 was a gravel road. If it was still a gravel road with no improved trails, hotels, RV parks, ski hills, hostels, etc.. but had some kind of protection such as a Wildland Park from the beginning the Grizzly bears, and all wildlife would be better off. Damn Olympics....

Self propelled hunters and backcountry users have almost no impact on the environment, just look at the Wilmore....

Anyways, just rambling.

Ya, no arguement here.....Willmore has its own problems though. Ungulate populations are at an all-time low.

 

[Norton]

There may be ulterior motives involved that have to be considered.
Stop access under the guise of “save the bear” management also stops ALL other hunting access.

Banning access at these designated grizzly bear domains essentially means banning all hunting at these locations.

Having to walk in 10 kilometers to where the elk are pretty much stops any and all hunting activities in order to save a falsely identified bear population problem.

 

[sheephunter]

There may be ulterior motives involved that have to be considered.
Stop access under the guise of “save the bear” management also stops ALL other hunting access.

Banning access at these designated grizzly bear domains essentially means banning all hunting at these locations.

Having to walk in 10 kilometers to where the elk are pretty much stops any and all hunting activities in order to save a falsely identified bear population problem.

If you look at the groups involved in Action Grizzly Bear, I'm sure stopping hunting would definitely be a secondary victory for them. With that said, I'm confident there was no bias in the numbers that came out of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Team. Are their numbers accurate? That is certainly open to debate.

 

[Rocks]

With that said, I'm confident there was no bias in the numbers that came out of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Team. Are their numbers accurate? That is certainly open to debate.

I wish I could believe that was true, but looking at their numbers and projections compared to my own personal experience and anecdotal evidence from others, the GBRT's numbers seem way out to lunch. I'd sure be interested in looking at the methodology of their surveys.

 

[sheephunter]

I wish I could believe that was true, but looking at their numbers and projections compared to my own personal experience and anecdotal evidence from others, the GBRT's numbers seem way out to lunch. I'd sure be interested in looking at the methodology of their surveys.

That's basically what I was saying....I don't believe there was any bias or conspiracy to make the numbers lower than their data indicated but you are correct about lots of people questioning their methodology for collecting that data. I know a couple members of the team and they are definitely not anti-hunting.

 

[jaydog]

No,you didn't miss anything,but managing bears or any game animals based on emotion and a Disney mentality rather than sound game management principles is never a good idea,for the game or humans.

Agreed wholeheartedly- BUT I hear just as much emotion out of the 'we must kill all bears before they eat our playing children' crowd than the 'save the bears because they are cute and fuzzy' crowd. I'm more interested in doing what is nescessary to have populations at a size where we can have and hunt bears as part of our landscape. Including being able to show my unborn children a real live wild bear.

Or we expanded more into their range and are now having more encounters. So maybe there aren't more. Maybe we are just closer.
Anecdotal is just that. It is not evidence. So this just means we have to work together on this with conservation scientists etc. Not just tell them they don't know what they are talking about and can stuff their stats up their ass because you saw one just last week.

And common sense prevails! I have no idea of the methodology of their data collection but I'm sure it was more rigorous than 'I saw more bears on my week long camping trip this summer than last year'. That said, until I see what they did I don't know whether or not it its flawed in a significant way.

 

[yyyyy]

Grizz in AB are being seen in areas they haven't been seen in decades. THEY are coming closer to us. The local guy killed this fall was killed in a woodlot on farmland just off a major highway.

How much has the population and cities, towns, and outdoor recreation of Alberta grown and expanded in decades?

I don't doubt people are seeing more Grizz. But that doesn't mean there are more on its own.