Latest Hot Topics from our Yellowstone Net “News and Politics” Discussion Forum
Join the Yellowstone Community Discussions
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/envi ... 494c0.html
Statistics: Posted by pugman170 — Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:51 pm
In fact, what ID has done could be considerably worse than bloody Wyoming. Why, "one ID grizzly versus twenty four WY trophy dead grizzlies" you may reasonably ask? Idaho, in order to draw attention to itself, as the pint size state, within the Tri State Agreement trophy killing triangle to trophy destroy grizzlies, has essentially advanced the scheduled aggressive, off the charts, 2018 Wyoming trophy bear kill race. Could ID be an envious, jealous, slighted neighbor? Hey.... give us more grizzlies to kill off so we can be like WY and bring in greater numbers of the trophy industry and their blood, not sport money. Why is killing just One grizzly (if naïve enough to really believe that one is going to be all that's killed) worse than the forthcoming 2018 wholesale killing off in WY?
Beyond ignorance and indignity, perhaps quite simple. Idaho is a vital land corridor to restore and allow the grizzly bear to naturally roam, forage and reproduce. Importantly, that soon to be lost corridor by the trophy shooters, adversely effects reproduction within its habitat, versus the well known and endangered island population of YST grizzlies that are endangered from well documented genetic isolation, shrinking habitat and Wyoming's, kill anything that moves, mentality. Therefore, ID trophy industry shooters will not only kill, but also further displace the grizzly and reduce or eliminate this vitally needed natural corridor movement. Both terrible misguided results and fully preventable by not allowing any state sponsored grizzly trophy hunting. Result....... unconscionably setting back one of the most viable and important conservation efforts to promote sustainable population. Sadly in ID and WY, it appears that actions speak louder than nicely, but hollow placed wildlife conservation, preservation, and tourism words. After the first year or so of trophy kills i.e dead grizzly bears, will MT give in with the feeling they had better proceed to hunt, rather than defer their own state bordered trophy grizzlies? After all, why should MT be left with scraps, if any bears are even left to trophy hunt, while WY and ID are well into second or third gear of trophy elimination?
Add Idaho to the shattered mirror image of Wyoming...........doing the wrong thing, at the wrong time and for all the wrong reasons. Two down, only one more to go..... before the trophy industry crowd has full geographic and political control, if they don't already .......
Seems like there is only one remaining question.............Montana, will you stand tall?
This is about grizzly bear preservation, nothing more, nothing less....simply NO HUNTING GRIZZLY BEARS as a state management preservation plan. They are not a sustainable "game" animal, nor should grizzly reduction, elimination, culling (pick your own term for trophy killing results) to the highest trophy bidder and mega financed special interest groups to the detriment of a nearly eradicated American iconic species. ID can only spare ONE bear for trophy hunting and claim the grizzly s recovered and needs to be hunted out to control population! If this doesn't cry out to slam the brakes on trophy hunting, I don't know what does.
The United States Department of Interior let the Genie out of the bottle less than a year ago by delisting ESA protection. Now the rapid results of that unleashed Genie are evident... where does the Genie now lurk?.....the trophy hunting industry's crosshairs awaiting grizzly bears at YNP/GYE boundaries...that same Genie all the while, remains invisible to the grizzly.... until suffering the immediate ripping, crushing bewildering pain and destruction of impact from behind those crosshairs. The finality of the impact is the moment of truth for state management plans of grizzly bear preservation and celebration within the trophy hunting industry. The Genie?......moves on perhaps to the next state and next grizzly, if there is one to even to be found. Recall, ID with its call to arms for trophy hunt can only "justify" quota of ONE grizzly to be killed....by the sounds of that, the Genie may indeed have a hard time finding another......
Statistics: Posted by TNBob — Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:40 pm
https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story ... 451221002/
Statistics: Posted by pugman170 — Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:57 pm
Do you have any tectonic geo thermal powers for a second eruption in late May? If so, kindly invoke for my May trip
Statistics: Posted by TNBob — Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:49 pm
Your voice, effort and input is needed now more than ever! The near and long term opportunities to see or photo YST grizzlies will be seriously impaired following 2017 federal delisting and rapid 2018 onslaught of state trophy grizzly hunting. Combined, a lethal recipe for grizzly preservation and setback for decades to come. WY now leads the destructive race to support and serve up the grizzly bear to the trophy hunting industry and their special interests. My only interest resides for the preservation and no hunting of grizzly bears. If WY, MT and ID succeed as planned, losses will be well beyond the trophy killed YST grizzlies. Adverse cultural, ethical and financial repercussions will surely follow.
Briefly, the die was cast in 2017 with the new Secretary Interior "Delisted" the grizzly bear as "Recovered Species" from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA.) The federal government then transferred grizzly bear management back to the states WY, MT & ID, the only lower 48 so fortunate to have a grizzly bear population. Albeit, a very precarious population. Remember, these very same three states under their own former state regulations, protection, policies or lack thereof, resulted in near eradication of the grizzly population as late as the 1970's to approx. 150 bears or less. That period reflected the killing off grizzly policies and actions during the mid 1800's to early 1900's. Thus the feds stepped and IMO, solely prevented the taking of the last 100/150 remaining GYE grizzlies. Conjecture? No, I don't think so. How many grizzlies remain even in the remotest areas of CA or CO? NONE, not a single one! State wildlife protection policies, poachers and sportsmen alike, along with other human and natural activities, collectively eradicated the population to zero!
What did the Tri States do? Before the 2017 ink was dried removing federal protection of grizzlies by Delisting them from ESA, an elaborate TRI STATE AGREEMENT (WY, MT & ID) was already in place to promote biannual "trophy grizzly bear hunting." This TSA openly declared and stated killing of grizzlies as "TROPHY GRIZZLY BEAR HUNTING" as part of their handover state management plan. Numerous legal challenges followed and remain active, seriously questioning and debating the alleged "recovered grizzly bear population" and a host of other special interests "conclusions" in favor to end ESA protection. Consider the following. How can a population of anything or much less a species, the grizzly bear with lowest reproduction rate, high natural and human mortality rates, increasing loss of habitat, etc., ranging from only 650 to 700 total sparse population within thousands of square miles, be considered in the first place as "recovered?" Absent the strong political influences of the trophy hunting industry and their minority special interest groups, money, tax revenues and local votes, the "delisting/recovery" declaration was gleefully followed by state trophy grizzly hunting is preposterous. At a minimum, if "delisting" the grizzly from ESA survives legal challenges, state sponsored trophy grizzly bear hunting should be removed entirely from the States handover "grizzly bear management plans."
MT at least had the common sense to postpone any trophy grizzly bear hunting for 2018, but apparently WY is eager to be the first to let lead fly starting in SEPT 2018! Do you realize that TSA trophy hunting provisions allow shooters to "harvest twice a year" even valuable research collared bears! The very same bears used in long term population data and great financial/ time investment, i.e. our federal tax dollars. Furthermore, twice a year, YNP and passing through grizzlies will become "step over target bears".....what does that mean? ....... when a YNP or any other grizzly passing through YNP steps one foot over the border, WY says trophy hunters are free to trophy kill them. If that doesn't concern, bother or anger you, then no reason to continue reading.
This is not an anti hunting opinion or opposition to legal, ethical and common sense hunting supporting sportsmen rights to hunt sustainable game animals. However, the grizzly bear, evident by our past history of near elimination and tenuous highly debated "recovery" IS NOT a "game" animal to be trophy hunted.
If you care at any level, take heart, and take individual effort to stop this. In 2017 British Columbia, with grizzly bear population far in excess of GYE and decades of legal grizzly hunting, banned ALL grizzly bear hunting in B.C. How/why? Wildlife Agencies listened to overwhelming public support to end long allowed practice of grizzly bear hunting. In short, the citizens valued the resource and wanted their grizzlies to be protected. Their government listened and responded to real public outcry, not just the special interests determined to trophy hunt a valuable natural resource. At the unfortunate polar opposite, WY intends to be the leader and further reduce our diminished iconic national treasure/species grizzly population. If you research some of the intentions of involved TSA political leaders, some intend to quickly expand trophy grizzly hunting statewide, beyond the arbitrary TSA hunting boundaries where the killing could start in WY in Sept 2018. Merely five months from now! As many of you may know, each year hundreds if not more, YNP bison are legally slaughtered by shooters immediately crossing YNP boundary lines. It remains a contentious local and national matter of concern and outcry. Now in 2018, the same course and fate of many YNP/GYE grizzly bears could be in the same literal line of fire, with one big difference. The grizzly bear has a "Trophy Wanted Target" tag directly the result of 2017 Delisting/ESA and the Tri State Agreement for Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunting management provision.
Its our individual choice to be proactive and preserve the grizzly from both direct and/or collateral killing, wounding, disrupting by trophy hunters. Also consider that others may now feel somewhat enabled, with a sense of entitlement, etc., free of federal ESA consequences/penalties for killing a grizzly bear because of removal from ESA followed by immediate state sponsored trophy grizzly hunting. Do you really believe for a minute, that other grizzly bears beyond the deemed "harvestable" quota/levels/zones by the TSA States will not be killed, wounded or otherwise displaced from their natural habitat? Of course not! Therefore, once the trophy grizzly hunts goes live, the real mortality/morbidity will certainly be higher, not equal to or less than, the state kill quotas. The real "harvest" data will be inaccurate, misleading and more likely than not, indiscernible and unreliable for years thereafter. It will be subject to special interest bias and manipulation in order to validate initial delisting and enacted trophy hunting. Further danger? Bias data will advance future trophy hunting industry's thirst while appeasing minority supporters. In the meantime, the real "harvest data" versus the actual grizzly bear loss will be a compounding, rolling number as the twice a year hunts, continue lacking true and accurate population loss and bear displacement. If we were talking about a population with the law of large numbers, the effect may not be as severe. However, the grizzly population by any reasonable measure, is a very small, negligible number.As such, it's adversely effected by small variations of loss or decline, regardless of cause.
Bottom line? There will be far less opportunity by the average YNP visitor to view a grizzly bear, as there will be less bears due to trophy hunting with likely annual habitat displacements. Millions of dollars are infused into the local economies and collected state tax revenues for just an opportunity to see a grizzly bear. Wyoming is putting both the bears and local economies at peril, all to needlessly crater to the trophy hunting industry.
Register your opposition to trophy grizzly bear hunting and delisting the grizzly from the Endangered Species Act.
*Contact Gov. Matthew Mead.
*On Line Register your comment/opinion to WY Fish & Game in advance of public comment/opinion Comm. Hearing on 5-23-18 Landers, WY.
*Express your opinion and affect to the WY Dept. of Tourism.
*Contact your state and federal congressional and senate representatives.
*Contact U.S. Secretary Interior (responsible for Delisting the grizzly bear from federal ESA protection)
Wyoming............your trophy grizzly hunts are the wrong thing, at the wrong time and for all the wrong reasons! You are better than this. Yours is a great state with wonderful people that should not be nationally tarnished by what is about to take place. Please wisely consider the repercussions (ethical, preservationist and economic) that will likely follow. Yes, the small vested groups in line to reap big money for dead grizzlies will benefit. Their financial contribution will likely pale in comparison from the backlash of lost/diminishing state tax revenues. Income and survival of many WY businesses (large & small), local employment, lost wages, tips, jobs, services and products will be at real risk. All unnecessary, very unfortunate and immoral to reap large financial gain to few.Ironically, at the same time, threaten the very existence of the generating natural resource financially and environmentally contributing.....the grizzly bear.
Statistics: Posted by TNBob — Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:21 pm
http://www.ktvq.com/story/37717694/wyom ... n-40-years
Statistics: Posted by pugman170 — Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:21 am
Kelly Inn West Yellowstone shared Yellowstone National Park's video.
6 mins ·
Yellowstone National Park
40 mins ·
After reviewing seismic and temperature data from sensors in the Norris Geyser Basin, scientists believe Steamboat Geyser erupted at 5:30 AM (MDT) on Thursday March 15. With most park roads closed for spring plowing, no one witnessed the eruption. Park employees reported seeing a significant steam plume late on the 15th, and park geologists shot this video on Friday, March 16.
AND FROM TWITTER:
53m53 minutes ago
Video of Steamboat Geyser taken on March 16, more than 24 hours after an eruption documented by seismic and thermal sensors in the Norris Geyser Basin.
0:36 / 0:36
5m5 minutes ago
Like most geysers, eruptions of Steamboat can't be predicted: they may be days or decades apart. When it erupts, Steamboat reaches heights up to 380 feet. That makes it more than three times the size of Old Faithful, and higher than any other active geyser in the world!
Statistics: Posted by lah — Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:03 am
I think that they have already started plowing so no one can reach it by snow coach or by auto yet,it would be a real shame if it fully erupted and there was no one there to record the event.
Statistics: Posted by Mike — Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:06 am
Statistics: Posted by RikWriter — Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:09 am
https://www.kpvi.com/news/local_news/ro ... 3bb0b.html
Opinion......A traffic circle ? my town put a bunch of these in and they lasted about a year,more accidents,slowed the traffic down considerably,and cars and especially trucks(or their trailers) were always plowing right over the things knocking down signs
Statistics: Posted by Mike — Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:24 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/scie ... -list.html
Statistics: Posted by yellvet — Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:43 am
Statistics: Posted by BeartoothTucker — Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:58 pm
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/envi ... 451c7.htmlCarr said Moore had bear spray in his pack and a rifle in his hand, but the attack happened so quickly that neither was used.
Statistics: Posted by andrew — Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:09 am
Statistics: Posted by Alicia — Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:06 pm
In 2015, the young bear began exhibiting bold behavior toward people. So, how does the Park discern "bold" behavior from "curious" bear behavior or the behavior of a hungry bear that is going through the normal annual bear stage called "hyperphagia"? (fattening up before winter hibernation). Is it ethical to kill a bear for exhibiting its natural instinctive behavior?
Bears, both black and grizzly bears, typically, will investigate campsites and tents when they smell odors coming from food, beverages, camping and/or personal items that haven't been properly stored. So did anyone search the Heart Lake campsite or search the tents for any food or odorous items before the bear was killed? More importantly, many Park visitors can't tell the difference between a grizzly bear and a black bear. So was the right bear put down? More importantly, if the Park knew that an aggressive grizzly was in the Heart Lake area, why were the visitors issued a camping permit in the first place? Or, at a minimum, why didn't a back country ranger check on the campers, warn them about the grizzly and tell them to camp at a developed campground for their own safety?(Norris or Indian Creek)
In 2015 WY game personnel captured and tagged the bear and, reportedly, relocated it to the Caribou Targhee NF. So did the bear that was put down this month have the same ID tag as the bear that was relocated 2 years ago? The press release says that it was the same bear but how does anyone know for sure that it was same bear? For folks who aren't aware of this, relocating a bear is very costly. So, it's usually more cost effective and productive to put a perceived "problem bear" down. But perception is not the same thing as reality.
In 2016 the bear had reportedly entered campsites in the Heart Lake area and had destroyed tents, sleeping, bags and sleeping pads. So, how did bear management personnel know that it was the same bear? Or did they just "assume" that it was the same bear? For the past two summers, I've seen two grizzlies traveling together and foraging in the Slough Creek area. So, for anyone to assume that only one grizzly can be in one area, is simply not true. Several years ago, a similar incident happened in the Slough Creek back country. Campers had left their dinner unattended by the campfire and a bear showed up and ate it. The campers ran back to the CG and told the host that the bear had attacked them. But that never happened according to the camper that I talked to. They had left their food out in the open by the fire and the bear snatched it. The bear had never attacked them. But for eating their dinner, the bear was labeled as being aggressive and was put down.
The press release says that everything had been done to change the bear's behavior...having tried bean bags, rubber bullets and cracker rounds. When a bear instinctively needs food because it's in hyperphagia, then it will search and find food regardless of traps or the use of aversive conditioning. Since the press release says that the bear had been able to elude the traps that had been set for it in prior years, why would bear management think that traps would work in September, 2017? My theory is that they knew that the bear was in its hyperphagia phase and that it needed to eat. So setting a trap baited with a yummy blueberry compote would likely entice the bear into the trap. Well, it worked. But was it necessary to end the life of a young grizzly that was only doing what came to it, naturally, out of a necessity to survive?
So what did the rangers find at the campsite? Did they find any food or odorous items in the campers' tents or in or by their fire pit? Did they even bother to look? If the campers left anything out in the open in an active grizzly area, then the campers should have been cited for improper food storage, at a minimum. I blame the Park and the campers for the death of this young grizzly. It was a tragedy that should never have happened. As paid stewards of Yellowstone wildlife, Park rangers should never have issued a camping permit to anyone for a site that was in a known and active grizzly bear area, no matter how experienced the campers were. The campsites should have been closed when the grizzly was first sighted near Heart Lake in 2016, instead of waiting until after the bear was destroyed. And, most particularly, because of the bear's prior history of being aggressive toward people. Shame on all of you!!
This isn't the first time a needless bear tragedy has happened in Yellowstone. And it probably won't be the last until such time that 1)rangers start following the Park's bear management policies and procedures and the Park's bear hazing protocol and 2) until such time that visitors are vetted more closely for back country camping and 3) campers start complying with the Yellowstone camping rules and regs and the extra precautions that need to be taken when camping in bear country. If you're interested in finding out more about this incident, then I highly recommend that you request a copy of the final investigation report of the incident. Just write a letter to the Park's FOIA officer and request a copy of the report. The Park has to respond to your request within 30 days. If this bear was continually endangering the lives of campers and was destroying personal property, then it needed to be put down. But I also know from personal experience that, all too often, it's much easier, faster and cheaper to kill a bear than it is to spend the money and time to relocate it. How sad that bears always seem to pay the ultimate price with their lives for the lack of understanding, incompetence and complacency of well-meaning humans.
Statistics: Posted by yellvet — Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:00 pm