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.
Comments
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
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.
"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...
You are very right Ed, I like the way you think i vot for you anytime.
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.
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.
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: