Indigenous Nuisance grizzly management in Alberta

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Dubious

What part? The part where fish and game officers make up policy for the government or where political party’s don’t do thing for their base because they don’t gain votes if they pander to their base they lose votes.

Do you think maybe they haven’t put back in a grizzly hunt yet because they are working on the management plan for the species right now?

The fact of the matter is the grizzly hunt is a political issue and parties are more worried about votes than science. Now I am basing this off of how things played out with the grizzly hunt in BC when I lived there. Alberta definitely is different and a big reason why I am here but I don’t trust politicians regardless

I would be happy if I was proven wrong

[TBark]

Good idea, and manageable IMO.

As the title of this thread says.
Implement a Nuisance bear management program.
The program can be for indigenous (no tag) or non.
Let the tree huggers figure it out that it applies for either natives or non.
But with indigenous in the title, likely little opposition.

Tags are draw and are valid on private land and within 2-3 miles of adjacent crown as well.

Land owners register, (evidence of bear problems) and successful drawn, or natives connect with the land owners for access.

TBark

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by TBark

Good idea, and manageable IMO.

As the title of this thread says.
Implement a Nuisance bear management program.
The program can be for indigenous (no tag) or non.
Let the tree huggers figure it out that it applies for either natives or non.
But with indigenous in the title, likely little opposition.

Tags are draw and are valid on private land and within 2-3 miles of adjacent crown as well.

Land owners register, (evidence of bear problems) and successful drawn, or natives connect with the land owners for access.

TBark

Doesn't give the rest of us a shot at a bear and good excuse to deny it.

Grizz

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams1

Doesn't give the rest of us a shot at a bear and good excuse to deny it.

Grizz

Yep, If they let indigenous cull grizzlies there will be no hope of ever bringing back a draw season for anybody who isn't native.

[TBark]

Farmers with problem grizz don’t care who shoots them.
And maybe a program that allows a combo of a native hunt and a non native draw on the Ag fringe is a good first step.

TBark

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by TBark

Farmers with problem grizz don’t care who shoots them.
And maybe a program that allows a combo of a native hunt and a non native draw on the Ag fringe is a good first step.

TBark

I offered a similar suggestion to one of the GB biologists that presented a meeting down here quite a few years ago now. I pushed it and it never went anywhere, obviously.

They didn’t want to hear a hunting option of any sort. The big push around here now is, live with the bears.

Waterton biosphere is another big joke. Live with the bears, even if they are a threat to your family and livestock.

Political joke for the most part.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by tbark

farmers with problem grizz

tbark

sss

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Yep, If they let indigenous cull grizzlies there will be no hope of ever bringing back a draw season for anybody who isn't native.

That...

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Yep, If they let indigenous cull grizzlies there will be no hope of ever bringing back a draw season for anybody who isn't native.

Who is stopping Indians from culling grizzlies?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Who is stopping Indians from culling grizzlies?

Nobody is stopping them. Should have said if the public advocates grizzly population control be handed over to natives (as some here have suggested) then it would be highly unlikely there would ever be a season for anyone else.

[SageValleyOutdoors]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

I offered a similar suggestion to one of the GB biologists that presented a meeting down here quite a few years ago now. I pushed it and it never went anywhere, obviously.

They didn’t want to hear a hunting option of any sort. The big push around here now is, live with the bears.

Waterton biosphere is another big joke. Live with the bears, even if they are a threat to your family and livestock.

Political joke for the most part.

Absolutely. It’s all about politics….
Biologists do their job (and do it well, IMO). But they make recommendations, they don’t set policy. I would imagine they know as well as all of us that when you’re on the eastern slopes, you can see that grizzlies have expanded their range and numbers to what is quite frankly, getting to be dangerous. We don’t live in the 1800’s and deadly bear encounters are only going to go up and up. They can make all the recommendations they want, but as long as the political will isn’t there, the hunt won’t be reinstated.
I really think they should - especially east of the trunk road, where population density is higher and there’s a higher potential for negative human-bear interactions. But I’d bet it won’t come back. Not while politics and feelings overrule logic and biology.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

then it would be highly unlikely there would ever be a season for anyone else.

There will never be a season for anyone else. Period.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

There will never be a season for anyone else. Period.

And I agree with this also.

We can argue/debate about this till we are blue in the face. The fact is, the political theater, anti groups, and the woke agenda are controlling this.

Let's face it folks, there will never be another draw grizzly hunt for the privileged folks.

I will not comment on the Native proposed contribution to "fix" to this alleged issue....

[cody c]

I have an indigenous relative that might be interested to assist a farmer and take a grizzly.

To be clear, I am not myself with a status card, but would probably go with them.

It's not unusual to get some commentary in this sort of situation about using an indigenous person to shoot more game or out of season. That's not my interest, the risk of losing a rifle and vehicle to such activities makes me hesitant to even be present to an indigenous person hunting. My brothers wife is also an indigenous person and he has had some CO's pretend to be detectives and play games with them to try and get some sort of incriminating statement with random phone calls pretending to be someone else. Funny story...

She shoots an x-bolt 30-06 but prefers his A-bolt 300WM believe it or not and only shoots for the deep freeze.

But to be honest I wouldn't mind trying to foster a relationship where respectful hunting access may be supported, and future problem bears can be dispatched. If dispatching a bear takes a few days, some assistance to find a camping spot within 20-30 minutes would be helpful.

Normally I travel to the spirit river / peace river area in the fall for hunting but live in Calgary.

Feel free to PM only if your looking for assistance and we can chat on a phone later.

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

And I agree with this also.

We can argue/debate about this till we are blue in the face. The fact is, the political theater, anti groups, and the woke agenda are controlling this.

Let's face it folks, there will never be another draw grizzly hunt for the privileged folks.

I will not comment on the Native proposed contribution to "fix" to this alleged issue....

Agreed this is my thinking also there will never be another hunting season for Grizzlies

[outofbounds]

Originally Posted by outofbounds

Mortality is mortality period, no different than what neighboring states such as Montana are currently experiencing with their legislation for reinstatement or consideration if figures allow for state control of resources versus Federal. Hunters and producers need to understand the relationship as a whole as it is an all in figure period, no matter jurisdiction.

As a suggestion, have look at what Montana is currently navigating through to seek state control of Grizzly Bear resources versus Federal control and listing.

Again, mortality is mortality at the end of the day.
Whether it be at the hand of MVA, natural cause, predation control from producers, or any other conflict from humans or industry.
Be it some numbers games are ongoing to satisfy certain groups, the mortality rate will depict the outcome. PERIOD... Management of in the interm requires transparency which we all know has not been the case. Supported by political sway and influence.

Montana has done a heck of a lot of leg work to again seek control at the state level. From the hunter perspective a hunt is no where on the horizon as long as bears are eliminated due to predation control. Meanwhile producers seek an answer to said predation as bear mortality brings stiff penalties should it be result of the producer or hunter.
In the end whether it be native or non, mortality is mortality when viewed.

Have a follow of what Montana has done to date.

[urban rednek]

Here is an interesting article in High Country News (Colorado) on the growing grizzly population in the US, and some of the challenges they are having. What are the odds some of their ideas will be adopted/modified by interested parties north of the border?

https://www.hcn.org/articles/bears-i...e-on-the-move?

Excerpt:

Today, grizzlies number just below 2,000 in the Lower 48. Their population has more than doubled in half a century, and, as evidenced by Keane’s encounter, the bears are no longer content to roam within the boundaries we’ve contrived for them. Yellowstone’s grizzlies have tripled their range in recent decades and are now moving north out of the national park. Meanwhile, grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide recovery zone are heading south. The populations are now only about 50 miles apart, the closest they’ve been in more than a century. Scientists expect that the bears will join up in less than a decade — two islands becoming a continent.

The return of the grizzly bear from near-extinction is one of America’s unlikeliest comeback stories. The bears are among the slowest-reproducing mammals in North America; they require vast tracts of habitat (an adult male grizzly can have a home range of 600 square miles); and they kill people. Bringing back the grizzly required humans to overcome their fear of predators and champion the return of a known man-eater.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by urban rednek

Here is an interesting article in High Country News (Colorado) on the growing grizzly population in the US, and some of the challenges they are having. What are the odds some of their ideas will be adopted/modified by interested parties north of the border?

https://www.hcn.org/articles/bears-i...e-on-the-move?

Excerpt:

With all due respect, our grizzly issues in Alberta are nowhere close to the issues South of our borders, and North (Alaska)...

[Pioneer2]

There's either enough for everyone or no one. No special interest groups or non-Albertans.