1 minute ago, Ahab said:

You would piece out the animal into smaller pieces so you could haul it out, or you don't shoot an animal that large that far away, unless you want a workout. Another option would be to drive a 4x4 or some other off road vehicle in to where the animal was shot. Hunters I know don't take shots where the recovery is too difficult or not possible.

Yeah, I can just see some trigger happy redneck saying, Hmm, that puppy looks a bit on the large side, perhaps I'll wait for one that's more manageable. Better still, why not just take the head and paws, I can easily carry those.

7 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

Most people in this thread are Brit/EU citizens with a bone to pick with the US, specifically with its gun laws.  Knowledge of hunting, trapping, fishing, or furtaking are secondary.

With the amount of deaths by gunshot you'd think there was an open season on humans. Still, better them than endangered species.

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

All I can say is many of you making comments on this topic have zero idea what motivates hunters and what hunting is about. So go buy your pack of meat from Tesco and enjoy having someone else kill and butcher your animals for you. 

 

I really do not care whether you hunt or don't hunt, eat meat or are a vegan, I realize it has absolutely zero to do with courage or being a coward. 

Bear meat?

 

Yeah sure-they're all piggin' out at Bear Gryll's just down the road..

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

First, according to the news report, the judge in this case overruled the federal agency's decision to strip the bears of their endangered species protection. So, contrary to what you write, yes, they ARE still listed as an endangered species in Yellowstone.

 

Second, whether a species is listed an endangered or not should be based on science and biology. But instead, it's become a partisan political decision where too many gun and hunting nuts could care less about the actual biology situation on the ground as long as they're allowed to hunt and kill.

 

There are Republicans in Congress, as the news report I posed above above alludes to, who would probably abolish the Endangered Species Act if they could get away with it. Your argument is hollow and unconvincing.
 

 

The judge ruled that they are still endangered which is why hunting is still not allowed. Changing the status of a species under the ESA (endangered species act) is a long and drawn out process and is not taken lightly by fish and wildlife or the department of commerce. None of this is contrary to what I said. When the fish and wildlife service (which are in my experience mostly comprised of tree huggers) ruled the bears were not endangered/threatened, hunting was going to be allowed for the recovered species. When the court ruled the other way, hunting (of the court ruled endangered species) was no longer to be allowed because hunting of endangered/threatened species is not allowed in the USA (exactly as I stated before). Fish and wildlife service makes decisions based on science and biology but the judge (who knowns not much on either of these topics) ruled the other way, which is all part of the checks and balances of the absolute best political system in the entire world.

6 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Bear meat?

 

Yeah sure-they're all piggin' out at Bear Gryll's just down the road..

Yeah, not my thing either, which is why I don't hunt bear. Some people do enjoy it and they are the ones doing the hunting.

12 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Yeah, I can just see some trigger happy redneck saying, Hmm, that puppy looks a bit on the large side, perhaps I'll wait for one that's more manageable. Better still, why not just take the head and paws, I can easily carry those.

 

Kind of odd how these folks who profess to be hunting just for the MEAT also happen to end up with living room walls filled with bear skins and stuffed animal heads and antlers, etc etc...  But yes, I'm sure MEAT is really their main objective.

 

If it's really about meat, then go out and shoot something for meat that is NOT an endangered species or a species on the verge of being endangered.

 

 

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Yeah, not my thing either, which is why I don't hunt bear. Some people do enjoy it and they are the ones doing the hunting.

Really?

 

Please post me a photo of dentists eating pemmican...????

19 minutes ago, giddyup said:

With the amount of deaths by gunshot you'd think there was an open season on humans. Still, better them than endangered species.

giddyup and learn more about US hunting safety laws assuming this isn't some stale joke.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

In most states in the USA (possibly all) it is illegal to shoot an animal and leave the meat. I do not know of any state that allows leaving the meat of the animal after shooting during a hunt.

 

 

Idaho Waste of Game Law: "Hunters are required to remove and care for the edible meat of big game animals, except black bears, mountain lions and gray wolves. 

 

https://idfg.idaho.gov/hunt/big-game/meat-care-guide

 

I suspect they'd also exempt grizzlies if they had an open season.  Which kind of derails any argument that hunting bear is about the meat...

 

And on deer, elk and moose, it wasn't that way when I gave up hunting 30+ years ago.  So, I concede that I am not current on those laws.  And pleased to see them changed to prevent waste.

 

Edit;  Though, in bear and (now) wolf country, I don't think much meat goes to waste.  In fact, one of the things hikers, campers, fishermen and hunters learned back in the day was to avoid meat piles left behind by hunters because there's a reasonable chance that there's a bear in the area claiming that pile as its own.

 

24 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

giddyup and learn more about US hunting safety laws assuming this isn't some stale joke.

 

U.S. hunting safety laws?

 

Tell that to Dick Cheney and his unfortunate hunting buddy, in what was known at the time as Quailgate! Hey, Cheney bagged a 78-year-old attorney, who I'm sure greatly resembled the quail they were supposedly hunting! 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

 

On 9/26/2018 at 6:06 AM, dcutman said:

Of course you missed the little part, about how your hero's administration proposed the same thing.

 

The Trump administration's decision in June of last year to "de-list" the grizzly, formally proposed in 2016 during the Obama era, was based on agency findings that the bears' numbers had rebounded enough in recent decades that federal safeguards were no longer necessary.

 

No, it is just you who is missing things. 

 

Under Obama, it was proposed that the ban might be able to be lifted considering the rise in numbers since the ban was first made, their decision was to wait for 15 months to allow the public to respond and to allow time for federal officials to examine the evidence and to respond to the public's response.  It was clear that the majority of the public did not want the ban lifted and so they did not lift it. 

 

Compare this to Trump, the proposed lifting of the ban was based on made up science, as the judge has just made us aware, they did not put it out to the public or allow time for a response or for officials to examine the evidence, they just lifted the ban on their own personal whim.  Thank fully the judge knew right from wrong.

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

 

Idaho Waste of Game Law: "Hunters are required to remove and care for the edible meat of big game animals, except black bears, mountain lions and gray wolves. 

 

https://idfg.idaho.gov/hunt/big-game/meat-care-guide

 

I suspect they'd also exempt grizzlies if they had an open season.  Which kind of derails any argument that hunting bear is about the meat...

 

And on deer, elk and moose, it wasn't that way when I gave up hunting 30+ years ago.  So, I concede that I am not current on those laws.  And pleased to see them changed to prevent waste.

 

Edit;  Though, in bear and (now) wolf country, I don't think much meat goes to waste.  In fact, one of the things hikers, campers, fishermen and hunters learned back in the day was to avoid meat piles left behind by hunters because there's a reasonable chance that there's a bear in the area claiming that pile as its own.

 

Thanks for the info, not sure there is a hunting season for brown bears in Idaho due to the low numbers. Coyotes are probably also on the list but they are considered vermin. 

Just now, Ahab said:

Thanks for the info, not sure there is a hunting season for brown bears in Idaho due to the low numbers. Coyotes are probably also on the list but they are considered vermin. 

Low numbers?

 

Now why would there be low numbers of brown bears in Idaho?

 

Always excepting the ideal explanation that it is the second most boring place on Earth and no self respecting brown bear would live there..

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

Low numbers?

 

Now why would there be low numbers of brown bears in Idaho?

 

Always excepting the ideal explanation that it is the second most boring place on Earth and no self respecting brown bear would live there..

 

That's what they want you to think.... Idaho is boring.  That keeps out the refugees from other states that crowd up the place and drive up real estate prices like in Jackson (WY) and Montana. 

 

If you like the outdoors and the mountains (and don't mind the occasional wacko militia), parts of Idaho are almost paradise.

3 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

Low numbers?

 

Now why would there be low numbers of brown bears in Idaho?

 

Always excepting the ideal explanation that it is the second most boring place on Earth and no self respecting brown bear would live there..

While your theory is plausible, a more likely explanation is they were hunted to near extinction (prior to controls on hunting) in Idaho, and throughout most of North America. Idaho is actually a very beautiful place with many natural charms.

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, it is just you who is missing things. 

 

Under Obama, it was proposed that the ban might be able to be lifted considering the rise in numbers since the ban was first made, their decision was to wait for 15 months to allow the public to respond and to allow time for federal officials to examine the evidence and to respond to the public's response.  It was clear that the majority of the public did not want the ban lifted and so they did not lift it. 

 

Compare this to Trump, the proposed lifting of the ban was based on made up science, as the judge has just made us aware, they did not put it out to the public or allow time for a response or for officials to examine the evidence, they just lifted the ban on their own personal whim.  Thank fully the judge knew right from wrong.

 

The public comments are not a popularity vote and just because people don't want the ban lifted has absolutely no bearing on whether than ban should be lifted or not. The science said the numbers had rebounded enough to lift the hunting ban, the judge disagreed. End of story for now.

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

While your theory is plausible, a more likely explanation is they were hunted to near extinction (prior to controls on hunting) in Idaho, and throughout most of North America. Idaho is actually a very beautiful place with many natural charms.

"hunted to near extinction.."?

 

Do tell..

 

By the way I am not being "holier than thou" as I come from a country that has lost many beautiful species-due to foxes,feral cats and destruction of natural habitat mostly...

 

But the other day I came across this fella just a lyin' across the road-pretty good eh?

 

Better to shoot it with a camera,huh?

 

10 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

"hunted to near extinction.."?

 

Do tell..

 

By the way I am not being "holier than thou" as I come from a country that has lost many beautiful species-due to foxes,feral cats and destruction of natural habitat mostly...

 

But the other day I came across this fella just a lyin' across the road-pretty good eh?

 

Better to shoot it with a camera,huh?

 

A very nice looking snake.

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The public comments are not a popularity vote and just because people don't want the ban lifted has absolutely no bearing on whether than ban should be lifted or not. The science said the numbers had rebounded enough to lift the hunting ban, the judge disagreed. End of story for now.

No, that is apparently not what the science said, hence the extension of the ban.

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The public comments are not a popularity vote and just because people don't want the ban lifted has absolutely no bearing on whether than ban should be lifted or not. The science said the numbers had rebounded enough to lift the hunting ban, the judge disagreed. End of story for now.

 

No, not a popularity vote, a chance to give opinion, some people are experts but not members of the specific agencies tasked and they can offer their own evidence, and so in this way it can have a bearing because it can shed new light on the issue.

 

The judge found that their study was flawed and discredited their 'science' as being illogical.

 

11 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, not a popularity vote, a chance to give opinion, some people are experts but not members of the specific agencies tasked and they can offer their own evidence, and so in this way it can have a bearing because it can shed new light on the issue.

 

The judge found that their study was flawed and discredited their 'science' as being illogical.

 

I do not disagree with this post.

 

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

No, that is apparently not what the science said, hence the extension of the ban.

What you posted is not necessarily correct (I don't know the specific facts regarding this case), judges are not always the best source of knowledge on science. The professional biologists and wildlife managers at the department of fish and wildlife are likely to know more about the applicable science behind the ruling to de-list.  In this case a judge decided they had not followed the process, so they go back and redo the process.

15 hours ago, impulse said:

 

That's what they want you to think.... Idaho is boring.  That keeps out the refugees from other states that crowd up the place and drive up real estate prices like in Jackson (WY) and Montana. 

 

If you like the outdoors and the mountains (and don't mind the occasional wacko militia), parts of Idaho are almost paradise.

Really?

The fastest growing (and shrinking) states: A closer look

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/01/15/fastest-growing-and-shrinking-states-closer-look/1019429001/

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What you posted is not necessarily correct (I don't know the specific facts regarding this case), judges are not always the best source of knowledge on science. The professional biologists and wildlife managers at the department of fish and wildlife are likely to know more about the applicable science behind the ruling to de-list.  In this case a judge decided they had not followed the process, so they go back and redo the process.

No, that is not what the judge said.

 

Please reread.

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really?

The fastest growing (and shrinking) states: A closer look

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/01/15/fastest-growing-and-shrinking-states-closer-look/1019429001/

 

Still, at 7 people per sq mile, they're not exactly bursting at the seams...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density 

 

Compare that with 350 per sq mile in Thailand and 704 per sq mile in the UK.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

 

Jeez.  No wonder so many Brits are fleeing...

 

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

The public comments are not a popularity vote and just because people don't want the ban lifted has absolutely no bearing on whether than ban should be lifted or not. The science said the numbers had rebounded enough to lift the hunting ban, the judge disagreed. End of story for now.

 

If only it were the end of the story.

 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No, that is not what the judge said.

 

Please reread.

I understand what the judge said. Judges are not scientists or biologists and what I am saying is that they can get it wrong. In my previous career I saw several rulings on environmental issues supposedly because the "best science" was ruled to not be used. An environmentalist view of what is best science may be different from what is actually good solid science. The judge was swayed by the environmental side in this case, that does not make him an expert on the science, it just means that the judge ruled for one side and against the other.

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I understand what the judge said. Judges are not scientists or biologists and what I am saying is that they can get it wrong. In my previous career I saw several rulings on environmental issues supposedly because the "best science" was ruled to not be used. An environmentalist view of what is best science may be different from what is actually good solid science. The judge was swayed by the environmental side in this case, that does not make him an expert on the science, it just means that the judge ruled for one side and against the other.

Ok. Let's stipulate that judges are not scientists.

 

Are you arguing that the judge's decision, when presented with conflicting scientific evidence, to err on the side of caution and protection, was the wrong decision?

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Ok. Let's stipulate that judges are not scientists.

 

Are you arguing that the judge's decision, when presented with conflicting scientific evidence, to err on the side of caution and protection, was the wrong decision?

Not necessarily, I am only saying it does not mean that the science used by fish and wildlife was inadequate, because the ability of most judges to determine what is solid science and what is not is often severely limited.  Many decisions that relay on the "precautionary principle" are fatally flawed. Environmentalist love the precautionary principle because they argue that unless everything is known there is risk, but that standard is significantly higher than the best available science bar. Environmentalist know this and that is why they love the precautionary principle. The side with the most passionate lawyers are the ones that that will often win. The Fish and Wildlife Service have to use Department of Justice lawyers that also know little about what is good science and what is not, the environmentalist get to use lawyers that can twist sketchy science papers into the best possible science. The DOJ lawyers are great with the law, but they are not good at biology or wildlife management (just like the judges).

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not necessarily, I am only saying it does not mean that the science used by fish and wildlife was inadequate, because the ability of most judges to determine what is solid science and what is not is often severely limited.  Many decisions that relay on the "precautionary principle" are fatally flawed. Environmentalist love the precautionary principle because they argue that unless everything is known there is risk, but that standard is significantly higher than the best available science bar. Environmentalist know this and that is why they love the precautionary principle. The side with the most passionate lawyers are the ones that that will often win. The Fish and Wildlife Service have to use Department of Justice lawyers that also know little about what is good science and what is not, the environmentalist get to use lawyers that can twist sketchy science papers into the best possible science. The DOJ lawyers are great with the law, but they are not good at biology or wildlife management (just like the judges).

So then your assertion seems to be that no court should ever be able to adjudicate on scientific matters because it is impossible for them to do so. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

 

What would be the best way to decide these matters when there is conflicting evidence.

 

And please don't start with "the evil environmentalists have rigged the game". Governments, corporations AND environmentalists all attempt to use the system to their advantage... so how do we get the "best science" outcome, in your opinion?