Wyoming Gov. Gordon has signed into law legislation that would allow the state to send any grizzly bears it traps to California./NPS
It's been almost a century since a grizzly bear was seen in California, but Wyoming is ready to ship some of theirs to the state that features a bear on its flag.
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon on Friday signed nearly two dozen bills into law, including one that says there's a need to conduct a grizzly bear hunt in the state. While the state was ready to hold a grizzly bear hunt last fall for bears that wander out of the Great Yellowstone Ecosystem, in September a federal judge rejected the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to remove grizzlies in the ecosystem from protection under the Endangered Species Act.
That led the Wyoming Legislature, which cited the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- which "guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution" -- earlier this month to pass a measure authorizing the state's Game and Fish Commission to hold a hunt for the bears if it determines such a hunt "would be beneficial for managing Wyoming's wildlife and for protecting Wyoming workers and other citizens and tourists of the state..."
Tacked onto that measure as an amendment is permission for the Game and Fish Commission to send any grizzly bears it traps "to the state of California ... or to other willing states with suitable habitat."
No word yet if California is interested in grizzlies.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Heck no we dont want their grizzleys
Mark Gordon would be doing CA a favor if he just shot the Grizzlies in Wyoming, if Wyoming can't get a hunting season approved for those things after they've become succesfully established there's no way in hell the liberals in CA will allow a hunting season for them. The only way I think it would be good for CA is if they released the grizzlies in downtown Los Angeles and San Diego!!!! And if they don't want them there then they shouldn't put them in any part of CA!!
This isn't really serious. It's more snark than anything else from the part of the legislators in Wyoming. I suppose they used California as the "destination" because they don't approve of the state's politics. While this bill was circulating there was this piece on NPT, where the comments were eventually shut down for excessive argumentation.
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/02/wyoming-senate-supports-re...
OBVIOUSLY, Mark Gordon is being a smart ass.
Not Gordon, since he just signed a larger bill. This amendment was tacked on by Larry Hicks.
y_p_w - I don't understand why you are so convinced this is snark and not sincere? People have long lamented the loss of grizzlies in CA and I am sure many would like them back if reintroduction could be successful. http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/06/20/new-move-bring-back-grizzly-b...
I have no problem if it's done with good intentions and done the right way. Most reintroductions aren't of "problem" animals that have been killing livestock or raiding campgrounds. We've got enough of black bears doing that in Yosemite, SEKI, and Lake Tahoe.
But the sponsor of this legislation has made it clear what his intent is.
The language of the legislation specifically states the reasons (livestock depredation, property damage, danger to human life) why they would generally euthanize these animals, but that they should instead foist them upon the people of California. You can't see the snark in this?
No Y_p_k I can't see the snark. Troublesome animals are frequently relocated. And unfortunately, your link didn't work for me so I didin't see him clearly exposing his intent.
Are you this obtuse? This isn't genuine - not in the least. The debate on this included the author stating that problem bears should be relocated to California. The text itself says "Grizzly bears are trapped and relocated in Wyoming and in some cases are euthanized for livestock depredation, property damage or endangerment of human life." Exactly what does that mean to you? Bears just playing around in the meadows, or lets see if we can give put people in Califonia in danger with our dangerous bears?
As for the link I guess you'll just need to cut, paste, and reassemble because it's always cutting it off for some reason.
www.jhnewsandguide.com/the_hole_scroll/ article_b5251318-294f-5fa4-8542-db976ce2ec63.html
ypw
Bears are already, for the most part, being relocated. What is more dangerous to people about putting them in CA instead of WY? As to the link - just google "grizzly bears in California", you will get plenty of articles discussing the potential.
Send them. Cant wait til left wing PCT hikers from Marin County get ripped outta there tents. First wolves, than Grizzlies. Nice. Deer and elk in this state are doomed.
You are very right Ed, I like the way you think i vot for you anytime.
"Doomed", Ed? Makes me wonder how any deer and elk survived these terrible predators for the hundreds of thousands of years before we recently arrived to 'manage' them. Not to forget dire wolves, short-faced bears and sabre-toothed tigers...
There's a joke in here somewhere about "when Wyoming's sending it's grizzlies, they're not sending their best grizzlies, they're sending grizzlies that have lots of problems...". But seriously, re-introduction of grizzly bears to California would need to be individuals of rather specific age, sex, and ancestry (unrelated) in order to re-establish a population. As far as I know, non-random, haphazard, problem animals have never successfully been used to re-establish a population of any animals anywhere.
I've certainly been at ranger talks where there was a discussion of bear behavior. One of the most common questions is about why they don't relocate "problem" bears or just send them to zoos. And the answer is that relocation too far just relocates the problem, and zoos absolutely don't want bears that have demonstrated they can be dangerous to people or livestock.
That being said, I don't necessarily fear grizzly bears as long as the intent isn't to pass on someone else's problems. Through the language of the law and the bill's debate it's pretty clear they were joking about giving Califonria problem bears. But of course this isn't anything they could do without a willing participant. In California we get enough problems with other states buying one-way bus tickets for their homeless and/or mentally ill. And certainly the talk about "repeat offenders" doesn't exactly sound as if they're serious.
Bears are being relocated short distances to see if they can stop their behavior. But most seem to get used to it and then end up being captured and killed.
Again - I have no problem with relocation of grizzly bears, as long as the intent is to relocate bears that won't be a nuisance or even dangerous. However, it's pretty clear to me since the legislation mentions relocating bears to California that would otherwise be euthanized due to dangerous behavior. They're literally saying that they should protect the people and visitors of Wyoming by relocating the problems to California. And you can see the response here gleefully hoping that Californians get ripped out of their tents.
This is the actual text: