SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.
Canadian Subscriptions | International Subscriptions
CLOSE WINDOW


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

 reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Grizzly Numbers Up in Greater Yellowstone...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
rangersven Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3010
Joined: Jul. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 15 2012, 2:42 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE
http://trib.com/news....c7.html

--------------
"Backpacker.com's Original Provocateur"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15549
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 15 2012, 6:45 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE
I am of the "school" that believes Grizzlies are WAY under counted in the GYE. Certain officials have been quoted off the record as saying estimates could be 40% lower than actual numbers. Many of us see Grizzlies with a frequency that seems to increase substantially each season.

Nonetheless I remain in the wait and see camp when it comes to delisting. I'll suggest that if there is not a significant decline in GYE Grizzly numbers by Spring 2015 then the delisting process should again proceed. Remember, just as it is with wolves delisting does not equate to open season. As with wolves all National Park Lands would remain a complete sanctuary from hunters and any hunting beyond the parks would be REALLY heavily regulated in existing Grizzly habitat. I can't imagine they would ever gain the predator status wolves have in Wyoming beyond the GYE.

--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
BradMT Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3443
Joined: May 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 15 2012, 8:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

(double cabin @ Nov. 15 2012, 4:45 pm)
QUOTE
I am of the "school" that believes Grizzlies are WAY under counted in the GYE. Certain officials have been quoted off the record as saying estimates could be 40% lower than actual numbers. Many of us see Grizzlies with a frequency that seems to increase substantially each season.

Nonetheless I remain in the wait and see camp when it comes to delisting. I'll suggest that if there is not a significant decline in GYE Grizzly numbers by Spring 2015 then the delisting process should again proceed. Remember, just as it is with wolves delisting does not equate to open season. As with wolves all National Park Lands would remain a complete sanctuary from hunters and any hunting beyond the parks would be REALLY heavily regulated in existing Grizzly habitat. I can't imagine they would ever gain the predator status wolves have in Wyoming beyond the GYE.

I agree with everything you wrote 100%

--------------
Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty. – Socrates
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 39801
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2012, 3:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE
population gauging is certainly a tough nut:
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/IGBST/GYEGBMonMortWksRpt2012.pdf
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 39801
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2012, 5:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE
BTW I thought they were doing more with dna based counts off baited wire snags?

Didn't see that mentioned.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15549
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 17 2012, 9:47 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE
Thanks HSF. That makes me a lot less skeptical of the comittment of the counting program. I needed it.

There is an attitude among some folks in the area that "they" have no idea what they're doing when it comes to counting. I understand its a very complex task, and as much as I believe they've been undercounted I cannot fault the folks doing their best to find hundreds of bears across almost 20 million often quite remote acres.

Whatever the methods its clear to a lot of us here that there are a LOT more bears than there were 10 years ago. With them moving into more and more areas they haven't favored in generations I believe densities are way up. In July I was charged by a big boar and less than 30 minutes later I air-horned two adolescent males up out of the willows. There was a fire in the area that I think bunched them together more than they otherwise might have been, but in the same area a sow with cubs had been spotted frequently. The old theory that Grizzlies need 50 square miles of personal territory went the way of success several years back.

--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4886
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 17 2012, 10:32 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE
While the book dates back a few decades, "Track of the Grizzly" by John Craighead shows that they knew in the 60s that grizzly were not territorial and personal ranges were as little as 10-15 miles up to 150. Just because you see a grizzly on the south side of YNP doesn't mean you won't see the same one 20 miles into MT a week later.

The Craigheads also found that official counts by government employees were usually wildly inflated. That may have changed over the years but I doubt it.

True the numbers are up but I question whether they're as high as claimed.

--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
6 replies since Nov. 15 2012, 2:42 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


  		reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Grizzly Numbers Up in Greater Yellowstone...
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions