SummitPost.org

Last weekend as I was hiking out of Minarets Wilderness I ran across this fellow on horseback, loaded down with rifles, and was reminded about the beginning of hunting season in California.

No issue with hunting here, but what struck me a few years ago after moving here was the apparent hypocrisy of the treatment towards some game animals. Yosemite roads are plastered with signs warning of the risk to bears from speeding, and improper food storage, but seemingly no one gives a rip if speeding kills deer. And they cater to the bears so much that even problem bears are allowed to go on, past the point where they should probably be dealt with.

When I moved here I didn't think anything was unusual, until I realized black bears are just another game animal here. If the state is going to kill 1800+ bears every year, what is the big deal about one getting hit by a vehicle, or put down after becoming habituated?

Not advocating those things necessarily, just thinking if it is a game animal, perhaps bear's lives should be thought of a bit more like deer or wild pigs. The key world here is 'if'.

How hypocritical is bear management in states you live in or visit?

Vitaliy M wrote:Would be so fun blowing a bear's head off with my Saiga .308 from the top of Half Dome...

that's a weak gun dude. what's the point if you aren't going to be able to take down a dozen tourists/hikers with the bear?

see below:



you have a lot to learn about killing things, grasshopper.

My opinion on deer -- Not Safe For Work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL9xCWphV8s

Before this topic gets too far off the OP:

I'm speak for my experience in Montana and then address what I perceive to be the underlying issue.

In Montana, we have black bears and grizzly bears. Black bears are hunted, grizzlies are not since they are (back) on the endangered species list in all of the state. [Grizzlies were previously delisted in Yellowstone, but this was overturned – whether on or off the list, all management plans call for no hunting, even the state's current plan that was used for 2 years while the population was delisted.]

In essence, the state management of bears can be summed up as: Black bears are a game species, and a conservation approach with limited hunting is used to provide opportunity and population control (population stabilization appears to be the current goal). Grizzly bears are not a game species, and thus a preservation framework is applied, whereby minimal human influence will hopefully keep the grizzly population from decreasing (population growth appears to be the current goal). There doesn't appear to be any hypocrisy at this point, however, I've merely stated the management of bears from the state agency perspective.

The underlying issue is that numerous forces are at play with differing perspectives on how they should manage people and wildlife for good the of the natural resource. Most of the other forces in Montana are federal agencies: BLM, NPS, USFS, USFWS, etc. Each of these agencies has a different philosophy. Perhaps the most polar opposite perspective from the state agency is the NPS, which has a strictly preservationist stance – as you see in Yosemite. Here, all critters should be preserved and uninfluenced by people the greatest extent that reality allows (while still providing a wilderness Disneyland for people, of course). Thus, no animals within park boundaries are viewed as game (even black bears), until they leave the park. The perfect example is elk in Yellowstone: a majority of the year, the elk stay in the park on the Northern Range, but they generally leave once winter conditions set in. They are not game in the park, just wildlife. As soon as they leave, they become game.

So, if the NPS (and other agencies) are concerned about the welfare of all wildlife, why would the put up signs highlighting bears? My guess is that they're a showcase species, easily recognizable and loved by many, if not most, visitors (especially in parks). So people slow down, and all wildlife benefit from being squished less often. It would be harder to get people's attention and change their behavior with a common garter snake or squirrel on a sign (unless he was packin' heat, of course).

So your observations, in my opinion, are largely due incongruent philosophies between agencies, particularly those that manage land resources vs. wildlife resources. It's not as much hypocrisy as it is dichotomy. And even within an agency, the cute and cuddly are used to benefit all wildlife.

That's a pretty accurate and well-said post there, Pkhgger.

I'd agree that hunting deer in national parks would have some benefits, especially in Yosemite/SEKI. When I visiting Grand Teton and Yellowstone, I was very surprised not to have to store food in bear boxes, it was fine in vehicles. I wonder if that is simply due to a stronger bear management policy (but they still have plenty of them left over).

I nearly drove up a bear's ass driving home last July in Yosemite, was dark and difficult to see, he just strolling down my lane. I suppose if I'd hit him there would be another 'Speeding Kills Bears' sign put up, even though I wasn't speeding. Actually, the accident would have been caused by me spending more time looking at my speedometer, worried about tickets, rather than paying attention to the road. The speed limits in Yosemite and aggressive enforcement of such does a disservice to everyone.

peakhugger wrote:So your observations, in my opinion, are largely due incongruent philosophies between agencies, particularly those that manage land resources vs. wildlife resources. It's not as much hypocrisy as it is dichotomy. And even within an agency, the cute and cuddly are used to benefit all wildlife.

I think that is well said, and the rest of your post. I suppose I think there could be some benefits to a more consistent approach between the agencies. Or rather perhaps that the feds are taking it a bit too far.

Fletch wrote:Heck, probably with Koalas and Pandas too.

Deer again -

Vitaliy M wrote:Bears in Yosemite are too damn annoying. Park management caters to them more than to the tourists that visit. IF it was up to me, I'd allow hunting for bears in Yosemite for couple of season to put them into their place. I bet car break ins etc would be rare after.

Would be so fun blowing a bear's head off with my Saiga .308 from the top of Half Dome...

Actually in Yosemite they cater to the tourists too much; they've put all of the tourist facilities in the best bear habitat in the park. Shenandoah NP is half the size of Yosemite and has twice as many bears, but it doesn't have the bear problems that Yosemite does. Why? The visitor facilites aren't in the best bear habitat (and there's more of it).

Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Not saying where they should be. Just saying that in the valley, along the river, is the best bear habitat in the park.

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Sacramento.

mconnell wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Sacramento.

Seconded.

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Maybe outside the park! Seriously, though, Yosemite Valley in summer compares only to Grand Canyon South Rim for a zoo-like atmosphere, and I don't mean the wildlife. It's not that there are facilities; it's that there are way too many.

Vitaliy M wrote:

Koalas are not cute! When is the hunting season for these blood suckers?

LOL

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Yosemite or Yellowstone? Does it really matter ..