Yellowstone In the News

Latest Hot Topics from our Yellowstone Net “News and Politics” Discussion Forum

YNet Forums

Yellowstone Net Discussion Forums

Posted: November 25, 2014, 10:35 pm
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/11/photography-national-parks-time-end-elk-culling-grand-teton-national-park25962

Pretty good article by Deby Dixon in National Parks Traveler. A few inaccuracies/overstatements (Grizzly Bears are not delisted like wolves, the hunting in GTNP is limited to select parts of the expansion portion only, and I don't believe her over-quota numbers were accurate - my understanding is that the herd is more than 3,000 animals over quota and has been for a long time).

As a hunter, I wouldn't consider a hunt in this area because (1) it is a National Park area and (2) due to the morons (in the form of other hunters) that appear to frequent it, and the bad rap they have given it. That, and the fact that it would be so visible to non-participants - I can respect that. If I had any feedback for hunters in the area it would be to respect the animal, respect the non-hunter, safety, discretion, clean kill, field dress the animal in the field and pack out the meat just like I do in the real woods. And for pete's sake, don't throw that animal on the roof of your vehicle...

Statistics: Posted by Colorado_Dave — Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:35 pm


Posted: November 24, 2014, 10:26 pm
Dave Parker wrote:
The group mentality is in no way limited to Wyoming or Montana, it has happened in virtually every state that has game animals, whether deer, elk, pronghorns, caribou, etc. It even happens in fishing, where fish are schooling, fisher persons will group up, so it is not unique, in fact in some states group hunting is legal. It really only gathers interest when it happens in areas that are also frequented by non-hunters such as Grand Teton and the area in Montana, that is butted up to private land and there were trespassing violations. What really needs to happen is, the idea of shooting into herds of animals, needs to be taught as un-ethical behavior, in the hunters education classes, and there needs to be a small flyer handed out with game licenses when you purchase that it is not acceptable behavior and is not considered fair chase. In Grand Teton, it needs to be strongly stated, that driving animals and shooting into herds is not allowed and when caught, they will be ticketed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law and they will never be allowed to hunt in the Grand Teton hunt again. In other words, you will not be allowed to be deputized again.

I don't believe that limiting the number of hunters in the park would really work out, if there are 650 permits available, then there can be up to 650 hunters in the park at any given time, I don't believe it is hunters coming into the area that did this, I would suspect it is local hunters that have done this, but trying to limit who can be in the park at a given time to hunt is going to result in a strong push back over limiting opportunity, I could however see breaking the season up into specific time frames, this has been done in many areas over the years. In other words, if you purchase a license number 1-100 you are allowed to hunt during this time frame, and so on, but something like 5 hunters at a time would not work, with that many tags available, there is not enough weeks in the year to accommodate the number of tags available. The tag numbers are set by those who manage the wildlife, so either you would have to reduce tags, or lengthen the season, neither which is going to go over well.


Okay yeah, I do like your idea better. So get 'er done, Dave! :D

Statistics: Posted by BigSkyNative — Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:26 pm


Posted: November 24, 2014, 10:25 pm
Ironically, and somewhat counter-intuitively, the answer to this issue is to open more of GTNP to hunting. Closing the snake river bottom to hunting has had the consequence of focusing hunting in the area near the Gros Ventre and Blacktail Butte. Reopening the snake river bottom would help, and opening some areas west of the snake river would go a long way towards preventing this sort of thing.

Statistics: Posted by Woolly the Mammoth — Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:25 pm


Posted: November 24, 2014, 8:32 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/11/ ... w-hunters/


This GPS system is a real bear.

Eight Montana grizzly bears have been outfitted with GPS trackers in an ongoing study that could bring some unnerving news to hunters.


The study is aimed at bolstering the theory that grizzlies, which can be as stealthy as they are ferocious, stalk hunters from as close as the length of a football field in order to steal their prey. Already, data has shown at least one grizzly following oblivious elk hunters almost from the moment they left the parking lot, according to the Billings Gazette. Scientists believe the bear may have been following the humans in hopes of getting to a fallen elk before they did.

"Bears opportunistically scavenge carcasses throughout the active season and commonly usurp kills of other predators, such as cougars and, since their reintroduction in 1995, gray wolves,” stated a report last year by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. “Remains left by hunters also provide grizzly bears with meat, and bears are attracted to areas outside of national parks when these remains become available during the fall.”

Statistics: Posted by RikWriter — Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:32 pm


Posted: November 24, 2014, 5:01 am
jeff338 wrote:
I'm a hunter and have been my whole life and plan to continuing to be. My daughter has been hunting sense the day she turned 5 she now 16. I'm also a guide and have guided hunts all over for over 25 year. But this kind of stuff makes me sick!! i hope every one of the guy shooting from the road got a big ticket. Hunters have a hard enough time as it is with out DA'S acting like that in front of other people that may not under stand hunting r agree with it and will in the long run do nothing but give us guys that enjoy it and respect the animal we hunt. I enjoy taking pic of animals as much as i do hunting if not more here lately. The hunting should not be done in areas open for tourist who r driving around trying to enjoy see the wildlife JUST PLAIN DUMB.......... As a hunter i do not agree with this kind of action.

Well said. What happened here was not in any way hunting. Any ethical hunter should be screaming louder and be more outraged at what happened here than anyone who is anti-hunting.

Statistics: Posted by Hayden Valley Girl — Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:01 pm


Posted: November 24, 2014, 4:35 am
jeff338 wrote:
. . . The hunting should not be done in areas open for tourist who r driving around trying to enjoy see the wildlife JUST PLAIN DUMB.......... As a hunter i do not agree with this kind of action.


I agree and for this reason, believe that hunting in GTNP should end. I understand what Dave said and remember in one of the ranger presentations we attended this spring the statement was made that in order for GTNP to be formed, concessions had to be made to accommodate hunters and other landowners. But I am surprised attorneys haven't jumped all over this situation to find a way to mediate a change. There are plenty of other places hunters can hunt elk.

Statistics: Posted by Connie — Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:35 pm


Posted: November 24, 2014, 4:06 am
I'm a hunter and have been my whole life and plan to continuing to be. My daughter has been hunting sense the day she turned 5 she now 16. I'm also a guide and have guided hunts all over for over 25 year. But this kind of stuff makes me sick!! i hope every one of the guy shooting from the road got a big ticket. Hunters have a hard enough time as it is with out DA'S acting like that in front of other people that may not under stand hunting r agree with it and will in the long run do nothing but give us guys that enjoy it and respect the animal we hunt a bad image. I enjoy taking pic of animals as much as i do hunting if not more here lately. The hunting should not be done in areas open for tourist who r driving around trying to enjoy seeing the wildlife JUST PLAIN DUMB.......... As a hunter i do not agree with this kind of action.

Statistics: Posted by jeff338 — Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:06 pm


Posted: November 24, 2014, 3:36 am
only one group of up to 5 per entrance per day so there will not be a ton of them in the park every day. not bad

Statistics: Posted by jeff338 — Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:36 pm


Posted: November 23, 2014, 10:36 pm
The group mentality is in no way limited to Wyoming or Montana, it has happened in virtually every state that has game animals, whether deer, elk, pronghorns, caribou, etc. It even happens in fishing, where fish are schooling, fisher persons will group up, so it is not unique, in fact in some states group hunting is legal. It really only gathers interest when it happens in areas that are also frequented by non-hunters such as Grand Teton and the area in Montana, that is butted up to private land and there were trespassing violations. What really needs to happen is, the idea of shooting into herds of animals, needs to be taught as un-ethical behavior, in the hunters education classes, and there needs to be a small flyer handed out with game licenses when you purchase that it is not acceptable behavior and is not considered fair chase. In Grand Teton, it needs to be strongly stated, that driving animals and shooting into herds is not allowed and when caught, they will be ticketed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law and they will never be allowed to hunt in the Grand Teton hunt again. In other words, you will not be allowed to be deputized again.

I don't believe that limiting the number of hunters in the park would really work out, if there are 650 permits available, then there can be up to 650 hunters in the park at any given time, I don't believe it is hunters coming into the area that did this, I would suspect it is local hunters that have done this, but trying to limit who can be in the park at a given time to hunt is going to result in a strong push back over limiting opportunity, I could however see breaking the season up into specific time frames, this has been done in many areas over the years. In other words, if you purchase a license number 1-100 you are allowed to hunt during this time frame, and so on, but something like 5 hunters at a time would not work, with that many tags available, there is not enough weeks in the year to accommodate the number of tags available. The tag numbers are set by those who manage the wildlife, so either you would have to reduce tags, or lengthen the season, neither which is going to go over well.

Statistics: Posted by Dave Parker — Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:36 pm


Posted: November 23, 2014, 10:05 pm
Dave Parker wrote:
BigSkyNative wrote:Let me put it to you this way, if the tables were turned and there were only camera equipment permits that funded wildlife management and hunters asked for a way for them to put money into the pot and we said you can just buy a camera permit and not use it...would that sound good to you?


If I remember correctly, there are only 650 hunting permits in the Grand Teton hunt, so it would seem as much as I read about this subject, there are more than 650 non-hunters that are out there, that they could purchase the permits and actually stop the hunt if they were so inclined.

But we all know, that is not a solution to what has happened it is going to take some meeting in the middle to get things on track.


Yeah, even though I might think having no hunting inside the parks and a big buffer zone around them would be ideal...that is not necessarily a reality.

And this really isn't an isolated incident. They just had something similar happen out at Canyon Ferry where 30 some hunters herded elk and flock shot into them. I have also heard a co-worker and a hunter with Montana Wildlife Federation tell me similar stories that happened in NW Montana.

I think that maybe in areas that this occurs there should be restrictions that apply as a result. So in the Grand Teton hunt area, only 5 hunters at a time can come out for the week to hunt their elk. That might discourage the group stupidity as well as make it easier to hold people responsible for their bad behavior. It also might make hunters more vocal about NOT hunting irresponsibly since it can lessen the privileges for everyone else. However, that is only as enforceable as legislation would allow and in Montana they don't like to give FWP those types of options. Can't beat them if you don't set them up to fail in the first place I guess.

Statistics: Posted by BigSkyNative — Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:05 pm


Posted: November 23, 2014, 9:08 pm
BigSkyNative wrote:
Let me put it to you this way, if the tables were turned and there were only camera equipment permits that funded wildlife management and hunters asked for a way for them to put money into the pot and we said you can just buy a camera permit and not use it...would that sound good to you?


If I remember correctly, there are only 650 hunting permits in the Grand Teton hunt, so it would seem as much as I read about this subject, there are more than 650 non-hunters that are out there, that they could purchase the permits and actually stop the hunt if they were so inclined.

But we all know, that is not a solution to what has happened it is going to take some meeting in the middle to get things on track.

Statistics: Posted by Dave Parker — Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:08 pm


Posted: November 23, 2014, 9:03 pm
BigSkyNative wrote:
I am sure you realize this but non-hunters and anti-hunters are two different camps. I think sometime that distinction gets a little too blurred.


As a person that has hunted for 50 years now, I am well aware that they are different camps, I have many good friends that are non-hunters and I know a few that are anti-hunters, they are very distinctively different types of people.

Statistics: Posted by Dave Parker — Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:03 pm


Posted: November 23, 2014, 8:18 pm
Dave Parker wrote:
I agree with some of what you have said, but the main thing is, hunters have to be part of the solution, there are many ethical hunters in the world and they need to step up to the plate and offer suggestions on how to fix these situations and non-hunters also have to realize, hunting is still part of our world and this always calling for an end to hunting is doing nothing but driving people to dig in harder. One of the biggest things that can be done to change things, is closing the feed lots in Wyoming and allow the wildlife to live or die based on the conditions. Instead of suing to stop hunting, those who want to see things change, should be suing to stop the feed lots.


I am sure you realize this but non-hunters and anti-hunters are two different camps. I think sometime that distinction gets a little too blurred.

Statistics: Posted by BigSkyNative — Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:18 pm


Posted: November 23, 2014, 8:11 pm
JohnnyB wrote:
Thank you for the response, civility much appreciated. My contest is respectful however arrogant or self serving some might perceive it.

Please forgive me if I've misunderstood but you're more concerned with recognition than ultimate effect? Then how about simply proposing a different tag, the revenues from which would be tabulated and that information released like others? How about proposing a similar kind of preference point system that allows non-hunters to buy more than just general tags and actually drop the number of hunters in limited take areas? How about fining photographers ten grand for getting to close to wildlife?......

I'm the first to acknowledge that Hunters really screwed up this country in centuries past, but with all due respect unless I'm mistaken TODAY Pittman Robertson doesn't cover cameras, backpacking equipment, etc. As far as I know those items are not taxed at any higher/additional rate than most consumer merchandise. Am I wrong?

What someone chooses to do with a firearm is up to them, but Pittman Robertson was engineered by hunting proponents. By any measure it raises more than a billion bucks a year for the department of interior and arguably several billion. Can you show us anything remotely close to that kind of economic contribution to conservation from non-hunters/sportsmen?

I don't think we should tax all cameras, therefore a permit would be the way to go. Of course I'd have no problem taxing no cameras at all if what are IMO little more than scams like Defenders of Wildlife stopped paying more than a half dozen six figure salaries and doing little else than circulate online petitions along with a few photo opps with more than $30,000,000 annually. For the record I do not think Earth Justice, the Sierra Club, etc., are bad organizations. In fact I support those two however much I disagree with their missions on wolves, grizzlies, and a few other single wildlife issues.

With all due respect I think we have a whole lot different idea of what the veracity of middle ground ultimately is. Without far more significant contribution for the acquisition of cattle leases, outfitting rights, etc., I see the "environmental" left wanting something for nothing. When wolf numbers in the GYE exploded several times beyond the most optimistic of original qualified expectations "environmental" groups didn't embrace limited "trophy" hunting or public involvement in the control of wolf numbers at all. It was our way or no way and remains that way. If they had we may not have a predator zone that will ultimately survive here in Wyoming when the next and likely last de-lisitng comes around. Yeah, I know there remain plenty of hunters just as arrogant on the opposite pole. Yet IMO from the outset the patronization and consistent dismissal from the "environmental" left set the tone for this conflict.

In 8 Presidential elections I've supported one Republican for just his first term, Bush 41. I am disgusted with the obstructionism and misrepresentation Republican leadership has exercised in Congress since we elected our first bi-racial President. I'm probably not going to support a national level Republican for a long time, perhaps never again. Yet when it comes to wildlife and habitat management I can't help but conclude there's a lot of reaping what we sow, on both sides, going on.

Peace,

John


First of all, the recognition and the ultimate effect are the same thing to me. If I were only concerned about my electoral choices it would also be just as effective if my husband were to cast my vote for me would it not? Yet women wanted those rights to be equal. It matters just as much that I am able to participate and that my participation is recognized. Different tags and excise taxes have been proposed numerous times before and shot down...and each time those suggestions were met with resistance from hunters. Quite frankly, I can only think that the reason for that is that hunters know what it means for them to be the sole provider of wildlife funding. We are kept outside of the system because that is where hunters want us. IMO the patronization and consistent dismissal from hunters set the tone for this conflict. Again, you are assuming things with the "environmental" left. I have no time for Earth First, DOW or the Sierra Club. I have no idea why you are bringing up how often you vote Republican, how on earth does that relate to non-consumptive contributions to wildlife management?

Let me put it to you this way, if the tables were turned and there were only camera equipment permits that funded wildlife management and hunters asked for a way for them to put money into the pot and we said you can just buy a camera permit and not use it...would that sound good to you?

Statistics: Posted by BigSkyNative — Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:11 pm


Posted: November 23, 2014, 7:34 pm
Steve wrote:
1. Move it farther away from the bait (the feed lot on the Elf Refuge)
2. No pushing the herd by your buddies. Outside the park, OK, inside the park, NO.
3. sub-divide the permits areas, ie> Jim's permit is good for south of Antelope Flats rd. to Kelly, Bob's permit is good for north of Antelop Flats road to the Science School entrance rd., Jane's permit is good for Cunningham Cabin to the river. Some kind of system like that so that hunters aren't lined up like a firing squad.


I agree with some of what you have said, but the main thing is, hunters have to be part of the solution, there are many ethical hunters in the world and they need to step up to the plate and offer suggestions on how to fix these situations and non-hunters also have to realize, hunting is still part of our world and this always calling for an end to hunting is doing nothing but driving people to dig in harder. One of the biggest things that can be done to change things, is closing the feed lots in Wyoming and allow the wildlife to live or die based on the conditions. Instead of suing to stop hunting, those who want to see things change, should be suing to stop the feed lots.

Statistics: Posted by Dave Parker — Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:34 pm


Comments are closed.