Yes, yes, DNS Polar bears are increasing in population and are "threatened," grizzly bears are increasing in population and are threatened because some folks want to reintroduce them to areas where people rightfully rid their population centers of these dangerous bears to people and livestock decades ago. For your information, even here in the lower 48, they are anything but threatened and it is only East coast politics that keeps them from being delisted, especially in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. They are now outstripping the food resources of Yellowstone and have far exceeded the target numbers set previously for delisting. Man-bear interactions are growing more dangerous all the time.
http://www.powelltribune.com/news/item/6973-grizzly-delisting-impasse
So, if you are going to ridicule my statements, please get up to date on the real issues of grizzlies here from people that have at the minimum to take them into account when doing any outdoor activity. In fact, how much money have you spent preparing for grizzly bear interactions? I have spent several thousands of dollars when you add in the guns I have purchased, ammunition and practice as well as bear pepper spray in the last few years. That is a direct cost to me simply for bear defense. Specifically, I have bought a Marlin .444 and a Ruger SRH in .44 magnum and I will buy in a few months a Winchester .44 magnum all for black and grizzly bear camp and woods guns. For your information, the ammo for these guns is not cheap and you must practice if they are going to do you any good at all.
In addition, the grizzly population is WITHIN the historical estimates from prior to any intervention of man which is estimated at 50-100,000 bears. We now have 55-60,000 bears in North America in a more confined space which actually increases the population density of these critters where they now exist. If you are so interested in preserving them, put them in your own back yard where they used to exist all the way down to Mexico and see how your ranch friends enjoy having them back.
So, you are in great error continuing the political double speak of calling grizzlies a threatened species when they may have the same exact number of grizzly bears in North America as they did hundreds of years ago as well as the fact that they are INCREASING in population throughout their range and expanding into the Olympics, the Bitterroots, Cabinet-Yak, and Selkirk ranges.
So, by your reasoning, we should up them back in Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake, LA mountains, Sacramento, Yosemite, Shasta, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, AZ, Texas, and don't forget the plains states. What kind of economic impact do you think that would have on all of the farmers and ranchers? Instead of spreading the pain of this beast between all of these areas that could support a grizzly population, they are shoved onto populations that do not want them to satisfy your sense of conservation that I highly doubt anyone in your states would accept. There is absolutely no reason not to consider the high Sierras as a grizzly relocation area. It is just as wild as Norther Idaho and Montana. Yet the people of CA would never accept them there. This is hypocrisy at it's worst.
Once again, if you are so concerned about them, put them back in these other places so all of you can enjoy them as much as we do here in Idaho. If you are not willing to put up with the sacrifices imposed on the people of WA state, Idaho, MT and WY, then I would ask why you feel you have as much of a say so in this whole issue as you folks seem to think you have the right to do. Come up here to Idaho and spend some time in the Bonners Ferry area and see what the people living with these bears have to put up with. There is no reason whatsoever that the bears are not now delisted since it is quite evident that the bear recovery has already accomplished it's goals. There is a healthy, reproducing bear population that is no longer in need of protection.
Limited hunting will not negatively impact their population even in the lower 48. To do any large game hunting here in Idaho, you must have a specific tag for that animal and they are controlled very tightly from deer, to bear to elk and especially moose. Hunting has the benefit to people of keeping these animals scared to interact in human populations. They stick to their areas and we stick to ours. It is an interaction that will prevent many of these adverse man-bear interactions. That is a very reasonable approach that the east coast weirdos will not allow Idaho to self determine. In addition, simply delisting does not mean that they would have to be hunted, but it would return grizzlies to the status of an animal, not that of some super protected species given even more preference than people. It is time to bring sensibility back to the discussion of grizzly bear management which we simply do not have today.
