|
RE: Can you skin Grizz pilgrim?
There's a way to beat the tree huggers, and that is the Wyoming G&F needs to set up some good computer population models (both deterministic and stochastic), and using bear data from the field to contruct models of population change w/ various levels of mortality (natural and hunting). The Wyoming Dept. went through this exercise w/ bobcats 30-40 years ago, and they were able to present data in Fed. court to prove there harvest mortality estimates they were recommending would not cause significant declines in bobcat populations. It was the only thing the Wyoming Dept could present that was considered evidence, and the huggers had nothing but smoke and mirrors
As Furbearer mgmt. supervisor in North Dakota at that time, I took that concept and developed it for coyote and red fox populations and most other predators, because I knew it would be a matter of time before politics started trying to tell G&F what was going to be done w/ predator populations and who was going to pay for it. Sho nuff the early 90's were D-Day on coyotes. I would go to governors mtgs. at the capitol w/ 3-5" thick stack of green/white striped computer printout sheets, and I had the upper hand immediately as soon as the printouts were sitting on the table. All the model input was field data so all the results were quite solid. I could answer every question re: the failure of bounties w/ data, and anything else that came to the surface. Not bragging at all, just trying to point out the Wyoming, Montana and Idaho depts. can win easily and quickly, but they need to derive necessary input data on grizzly bears from the field biologists like Wyoming did for bobcats in the 70's, and we were able to do for coyotes/red foxes in the late 80's.
Just my 2 cents worth on this, but I've been there done that.
Regards
IR
|
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
