There's a move in the Wyoming Senate to relocate trapped grizzly bears from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to California/NPS, Jim Peaco
April Fool's Day is still a couple months off, but a measure adopted in the Wyoming Senate the other week to send trapped grizzly bears to California does make one wonder how serious the chamber is.
Earlier in my career I spent nine years covering the Wyoming Legislature, and every now and then an oddball measure would surface. This amendment, introduced by state Sen. Larry Hicks, fits that description. Hicks views his proposal as a way to deal with troublesome grizzly bears that otherwise would be euthanized.
Grizzly bears are trapped and relocated in Wyoming and in some cases are euthanized for livestock depredation, property damage or endangerment of human life. If it determines under the laws of the state of Wyoming that extraterritorial relocation would be beneficial for managing Wyoming's wildlife and protecting Wyoming workers and other citizens and tourists of the state, the game and fish commission may relocate to the state of California all grizzly bears trapped for relocation or that would otherwise be euthanized.
The amendment was tacked onto a Senate bill that authorizes the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to establish a hunting season for grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. Whether it makes it through the legislative session and is signed into law by the governor remains to be seen. Of course, the bill, if enacted, could run into conflict with the bear's current status as threatened with extinction in the ecosystem.
Last September grizzly bears that roam the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem regained protection from hunters under the Endangered Species Act due to a judge's ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not adequately consider how delisting the bears would impact the species as a whole. That ruling brought a halt to planned grizzly bear hunts in Wyoming and Idaho.
How did Hicks settle on California for the bears' destination? The bear on that state's flag.
“I think it’s only fitting and right that we help our friends out to the West to help restore their state emblem,” Hicks said in a Jackson Hole News and Guide story. “This is the first step in getting there.”
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
Kurt, After your ridcule, I kept waiting for your arguments against the legislation but never saw one. What is the downside of attempting relocation to CA as an alternative to euthanization? - Of course, assuming CA wants them.
The problem I see with this Legislation has litle to do with the Bears. It has to do with Wyoming Over-Reach. Wyoming giving itself AUTHORITY to go onto National Park Service Lands to trap and take Grizzly Bears. I am sure if the NPS or the US Government oversteped their authority (They Did), the Wyoming State Legislators would (They Did), Fight the US Government in Court (They Did). Why is Wyoming trasspassing on NPS lands, any different then the US Goverment using the Antiqities Act to take Private Lands in Wyoming (OBAMA) or Force Land owners (The Town of Riverton, WY) to follow edicts of the EPA or Tribes that gave up rights to that same Land in 1905. So, I have very little Respect for the Wyoming Legislature, when they try to go against the Rule of Law, by allowing themselves or others to intrude on NPS lands, or take Wildlife from NPS lands. NOPE Wyoming. If you want the USA Government to leave Wyoming Private and Public Lands alone. Then have the same RESPECT and do not touch NPS protected areas.
Well, EC, the state would have trouble with the ESA, I believe. But yes, California would have to want them.
Figured out ESA. What would be the problem? ESA lets you kill them but not move them?
Yeah, the Endangered Species Act. GYA grizzlies are listed as threatened. So I assume there are some hurdles the state would have to clear before trapping and shipping bears to California.
They would love California!!!
It appears to me, there's no need for concern about the legalities of dumping bears in CA, foreign nations have been dumping their unwanted populations there for 40 plus years.
that , sir , was THE perfect comment ! Love it , lol!
Well said ! Wolves are on there way. More Goverment jobs !
Ignorance is pathetic!
I don't see how a state legislature could envision themselves having the power to regulate federal lands, especially against federal wishes.
I am a Wyoming native that was born just outside of Yellowstone. I am frequently amazed at comments and articles where the author is completely out of touch with reality, especially on this subject! The Wyoming Game and Fish Department does an excellent job of caring for alll the diverse species we have throughout Wyoming's ecosystem. Senator Larry Hicks' amendment is something that the majority of Wyoming citizens support. THE WYOMING SENATE APPROVED THIS BILL TODAY! Kurt, things have changed alot over the past nine years, especially with the number of grizzly bear encounters and attacks. Here is what is occurring in Wyoming right now. It is no longer safe to backpack into the forests and wilderness areas unless you have bear pepper spray, and a pistol or a rifle. Even if you have a firearm, you may never get a shot off as a charging grizzly can cover 50 yards in 3 seconds. Grizzlly bears are faster than race horses! A 600 pound grizzly charging you at 40 miles per hour is terrifying and often deadly! The Yellowstone area now has over 700 grizzlies and that does not account for the bears that now live outside of Yellowstone. The grizzly was actually taken off the endangered species list in June 2017 by the US Secretary of the Interior who announced the Grizzly Bear to be recovered in the Yelowstone ecosystem. Then the Secretary of the Interior and the Wyoming game and fish agreed it was time to manage their numbers. I am 57 years old and am buying my first pistol so that I can protect myself and my grandchildren when we are fishing or playing outside at our cabin, 40 miles south of Jackson Hole. In the past 3 years we have had bears and wolves on our property and we are not in a forested area. I grew up riding horses, motorcycles, snowmobiles and hiking all over the state and never worried about being attacked by bears or wolves. Now it is not uncommon to see hiking trails closed due to bear encounters. Our biggest concern statewide used to be rattlesnakes. Things have definitely changed in Wyoming...and what bothers me the most is that our 10th Amendment rights are being violated by people that do not reside within Wyoming. So Kurt, before you write something about Wyoming you need to do some fact checking and make sure you know what you are writing about!
I too am a Wyoming native. Born and raised up the Southfork outside of Cody. When I first started hunting and hiking the mountains that create the Southern Border of Yellowstone I was more terrified of finding a mountain lion than a bear. But around 2001 we had a friend that saw 7 different grizzlies on one ridge of a mountain. I knew things were changing. Now the deer and elk herds we used to see during the winter frequenting the Southfork Valley ranches have disappeared. The ranchers frequently file reports of grizzlies and wolves killing cattle in the area. One rancher had a grizzly running his cows down the fence line then beating the head until it died, then the bear would find another one and do it again, and leave them to rot. They relocated the bear 4 times, and every time he came back and did it again. I too will not hike or hunt there without a gun or bear spray. It is simply too dangerous. Had too many friends chased off their elk kill by a grizzly. They no longer fear man. They need to be hunted to keep the number down. Totally agree with everything you said!
Karla, the facts stand up in the story. To that point, grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem regained threatened status under the Endangered Species List last fall when a judge overturned the delisting. See the link in the story.
You are correct Rick, it is unlikely they could enforce this on Federal lands but the legislation doesn't seem to be specific to Federal lands.
EC, going back to your original question, I do think there would be some rather large logistical problems with the senator's proposal, even if the ESA wasn't one of them.
1) Getting California's buy-in, which seems questionable.
2) Actually transporting the bears from site of capture to California. Would sedatives be employed, and if so, you'd probably need constant monitoring.
3) Timing. Would Wyoming have a team in place whenever a bear is trapped to transport it to California, or would it have to stage one after capture and how long might that take?
3) On California's end, I presume you'd need a release team there to meet the Wyoming team. Where would you release them? National forests? National parks? State lands? BLM? Again, more red tape.
4) You'd probably need U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval to transport the bears across state lines.
5) While it's possible/likely that grizzlies could/will again be delisted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, I believe they would still be listed as threatened in California, so more red tape to navigate.
6) If all of the above were accomplished, how many bears are we talking about? Would it be cost effective? Who would bear the cost?
Going back to Karla's comments, for many, many years it has been recommended to hike with bear spray in grizzly bear habitat in Wyoming. It's not a recent development. At the same time, I've been hiking/backpacking/camping in Yellowstone --theoretically the core of the ecosystem's grizzly population -- for more than 30 years, always with bear spray, and have never encountered a grizzly close enough to require its use. What has changed over that time is developmental sprawl in the ecosystem and bear dispersal, so I don't question her comment about seeing more bears.
All that said, all things being equal -- grizzlies delisted, no lawsuits pending, everyone on board with the approach to managing the bear's populations -- I personally am not opposed to a hunting season, or a trap-and-relocate program if it makes sense. I'm not sure the senator's proposal passes the test at this point.
Bears are relocated all the time. Other than getting CA buy in, I don't see how crossing a state line complicates the process.
When was the last time an ESA-listed grizzly bear was relocated? Or even one not covered by the ESA?
ecbuck, the moving of animals across state lines is actually the perview of the USDA. You need an APHIS (guessing on the acronym there, used to work on the system years ago) permit to move the animal. This kind of permit applies to a lot of animals, so it's not a big deal, but it is red tape.
Also how many attacks have there been outside the park anyway? I know there has been an increase in the park in recent years, but many, according to locals anyway, were the stupidity of the tourists.
Many Californians would love to see the grizzly return, and there is ample habitat, but I doubt the politicians would be courageous enough to allow it. Then again, gray wolves have returned to California on their own, so....
Kurt, I don't know the answer to that but whether it is a black bear or an ESA grizzley doesn't make any difference on your list of objections.
EC, I'm not sure there ever has been a listed grizzly bear trapped and relocated to another state. Regardless, I was just pointing out that it's not as easy as it sounds. You can either agree with my point or explain why it's not. Saying you don't have the answer doesn't make my points disappear.
I already explained why I don't agree. Bears, have been relocated frequently. I don't see why a grizzly would be any different in how it was accomplished. And apparently relocation of grizzlies in Wyoming is not unheard of. https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Wildlife/2017_Relocation_Rep...
Not a grizzly but given wolves were transferred from MN to Isle Royale I would assume the same or very similar legal issues. That said, I’m more in favor of allowing hunting. More cost effective and would also help reinstill a healthy fear of man. It may result in less bear viewing opportunities but i doubt that would impact park visitation. Even if it idid, the parks could use a few less visitors anyway.
wild - except they died. Seems there is a much more successful history on Grizzly relocations.
Karla, incredible comment! I live in Montana and have my whole life! Grizzly mailings are a normal problem on this side of the mountain anymore also. Growing up nobody ever worried about protection or grizzly attacks but now we carry pistols AND bear spray! It's Damn time that someone finally come up with a solution though! Let's start sending some of these damned bears to the people who think they look good in OUR back yards and let them deal with getting chewed on while out hiking!
Would just like to say that the Grizzlies belong there. Like sharks in the ocean, they were here first. If you dont like bears and wolves, move out of their habitat.
I don't specifically have an issue with grizzly bears being brought back to California. They were an important part of the ecosystem once upon a time and I believe it would be good to have them back. I would have an issue if the desire is to trap and relocate "problem bears". This sounds very much like the way social service agencies in red states have decided to buy one-way bus tickets to California for the homeless and/or mentally ill.
Now I would have no issue if they could perhaps do this as a trade of grizzly bears that haven't proven to be an issue. We'll gladly accept them in exchange for a few Yosemite/Tahoe/SEKI black bears. I'm sure in Wyoming they'd love to have them teach (by example) other bears how to peel open car doors and perhaps how to break into occupied homes.
Leave the bears alone . Stay out of there home. PRACTICE LIVE AND LET LIVE. THESE BEARS HAVE A RIGHT TO THERE LAND.
EC, thanks for that doc. Interesting reading. My point, though, is that currently grizzlies are listed as a threatened species under the ESA and so relocating them across state lines likely is not as simple as it might sound. I wasn't implying that it's harder to trap and move a grizzly than a black bear.
As your doc mentioned, the state worked with USFWS and USFS on relocations ... at least prior to the delisting/relisting period. Perhaps Wyoming and California and the other necessary agencies will prove me wrong in the end, though I don't think Wyoming would swap grizzlies for Yosemite/Sequoia/Tahoe black bears;-)
My point only is the proposal isn't worthy of the ridicule you tagged it with. Lets discuss it without spite. Recently, too many articles here have started or contianed snarky comments that are totally irrelevant to the story. As I mentioned before, this story made ridicule of the proposal but didn't contain a single reason to object.
Take about 50 bears & drop them off in San Francisco save two for mrs Pelosi Walled property and let them be free
If they want to relocate them to California then California can relocate the criminals to Wyoming.
Great idea! Trap and move the problem bears to California. Except make sure they get released in areas were the most animal rights activist live. San Francisco. Berkeley. LA. Im sure they have some nice parks for the bears to roam. Screw getting California's permission. They've been interfering in other states business for years.
He'll Ya!
Send Grizzliies...Wolf's...Cougars. those Sanctuary cities will be some good eats. Maybe put a couple hundred Grizzlies on Nancy's vineyard.
Of course it's worthy of ridicule. It was specific in that bears that are a danger to the wildlife, property, and people of Wyoming should be relocated to California. Not Idaho. Not Alaska. Not even Colorado. This was specifically a dig at California.
And I double checked that this wasn't some early April Fools joke by Kurt. It's in the Senate File 93 text verbatim.
Certainly newspapers in Wyoming have ridiculed it, and are even shocked that it wasn't removed from the bill language.
So the solution to Wyoming's troublesome, and potentially dangerous, grizzly bear population is to ship them to California so they can be troublesome and potentially dangerous for Californians? Geez, thanks...I'd like to say, on behalf of California, we pass, but we are so stupid here you could probably get us to pay for them.
Reintroduction of the grizzly bear to California, after being irradicated in the mid 1800s, is in perfect harmony with the state's progressiveness. California has some of the most onerous gun control laws in the nation. Perhaps they will be revisited when they bears are turned loose in the state capital, SF Bay Area, and other blue precincts of the state.
I love Grizzlies too, they are extremely exceptionally important to the eco system in so many ways and besides, I love all animals and I am absolutely totally against murdering animals just for killing them! Nature put them here for a reason and it's not to be murdered for humans pleasure!
Ha ha ha lol its funny most all the people are from the east side of the Rockies relocated to Wyoming and Idaho maybe they should go back if they don't like bears
Kurt, please watch this YouTube video . It’s eye opening https://youtu.be/UvxLnh-w1s8
Jeffrey, yes, it's eye opening. I don't think anyone doubts it or is trivializing it. For what it's worth, here's a similar story we wrote back in 2009:
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2009/06/rocky-mountain-wrestling-l...
And a key quote from it:
Joseph, where does the bill say the state of Wyoming can enter National Parks and trap bears?
Due to the great increase in gratuitous comments, we're closing this article to comments.