Major decision being made on MN bear hunting!

[jkcmj]

MN DNR met yesterday to consider making it illegal to hunt collared bears in MN. This meeting, and the decision to consider a rule on this is influenced by the Anti-hunting group being organized by Lynn Rogers of the Wildlife Research Institute, who also runs the Lily the Black Bear page on Facebook.

The goal of the organization is to organize those who are against bear hunting into a force in determining how wildlife hunting decisions are made in MN. They are using members and tactics borrowed from anti-hunting forces from PETA, The Humane Society of the United States, and from overseas to try persuading our MN DNR Wildlife officials through intimidation and mass letter and emailing campaigns.

They have posted results of their previous write in efforts and though the few hundred letters or emails they were able to get people to send to officials don't seem like much in the scope of things, the 6 letters(mine included) received against the proposed law or DNR ruling, speaks volumes to those considering the decision. Those concerned about private property owners rights, private "ownership" over wildlife resources, or the future of Wildlife management in our state need to stand up and be heard on this issue.

Here is a link to the update yesterday where they are again planning a mass letter writing campaign to intimidate our DNR Wildlife policey makers and legislators.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=h#!/notes/lily-the-black-bear/update-february-25-2011-906-pm-cst/10150193826504478

Here are some of the people they are asking their people to contact.

Commissioner Tom Landwehr

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road

St Paul, MN 55155-4040

[email protected]

Tom is the decision-maker. Hopefully, he will read your letters and pass them down the chain of command to his staff of advisers mentioned above.

Representative David Dill

273 State Office Building

100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

St Paul, MN 55155

[email protected]

Rep. Dill is the representative from NE MN area where WRI is located.

Representative Phyllis Kahn

353 State Office Building

100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

St Paul, MN 55155

Rep. [email protected]

Rep. Kahn is willing to write legislation and talk to key people in support of WRI. If you are in her district, she would really benefit from hearing from some of her constituants who are hunters, as she actively opposing hunters rights.

Governor Mark Dayton

Office of the Governor

130 State Capitol

75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155

http://mn.gov/governor/contact-us/form/index.jsp

We need people from the outdoors community to write in asking legislators and the DNR commisioner to utilize scientific data, and real MN citizen's input when considering changes to our state's game laws and Wildlife Management Decisions.

We cannot have them hearing only the militant anti-hunting rhetoric produced by the people at WRI and the Lily the Black Bear site.

If you do not believe this impacts you, as a hunter, all you need to do is look at who and what these people represent. Look up any anti-bear hunting organization on the net and you will find they all list Lynn Rogers as one of their scources. Look at some of the links listed on the Lily page and you will find he is sending people to anti-hunting movement groups. Here are just a couple of the many anti-hunting groups Lynn supports behind the scenes, and references to him on their sites.

http://www.savenjbears.com/nature.html

http://www.aplnj.org/Black-Bears.php

This is a link to a site with great info regarding the impact these groups are having and why it is important for all of us to get involved at a time like this. Here is a piece off their site...

http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/news/index.php?topic=121.0

United We Stand

Of the many battles hunters lost to anti-hunting groups, Jeanneret said almost all could have been won. He is sometimes dismayed by the lack of unity among hunters, especially when an issue doesn’t directly affect certain core groups.

“Bear hunters have really been fighting some big battles, and in a few cases, losing those battles," he said. "I have no doubt that if deer hunters and bird hunters joined to help defend bear hunting, there might have been no defeats."

However, Jeanneret is convinced that many hunters don’t see the link between deer hunting and dove or bear hunting or trapping.

“These anti-hunting organizations succeed when they go after the less popular groups of hunters, like bear hunters or mountain lion hunters, because they know they are the most vulnerable and often have the least amount of support from the hunting community as a whole," he said. "They aren’t attacking bear hunters because they only hate bear hunters. If we want to protect the future of hunting that has to change. Hunters need to step up and speak out for one another, even if the antis are attacking something you don’t do.”

In other words, don’t wait until your freedom to hunt whitetails is directly at risk. Believe it or not, all forms of hunting are under attack, even if the anti-hunting crowd hasn’t set their sights on you yet.

[mainbutter]

I don't want to see this go forward, because the only reasonable way for it to be fair would be to limit the total number of bears that can be collared for research.

The scientist in me that is very much interested in black bear research hates when all that work is put into long term monitoring of a bear only to have that bear's research cut short by a hunter.

The sportsman in me causes internal warfare on this issue.

[delcecchi]

I don't want to see this go forward, because the only reasonable way for it to be fair would be to limit the total number of bears that can be collared for research.

The scientist in me that is very much interested in black bear research hates when all that work is put into long term monitoring of a bear only to have that bear's research cut short by a hunter.

The sportsman in me causes internal warfare on this issue.

I am with you. But it seems to me that there are a lot of bears in the woods, and not that many collared. Don't you have to have a DNR permit to collar bears?

The actions of guys shooting collared bears, perhaps on purpose, or setting up right outside the vince schulte land in orr make me upset or even angry, sort of like the guys that you sometimes hear about shooting some semi tame buck that someone has been feeding in their back yard.

[mrklean]

what a joke, just the anti's trying to get there way, isnt part of research seeing when and where the bear travels, and where they die? Just because one bear that these people named was shot now everything needs to be banned

[jkcmj]

Of course anyone who patterns a buck or bucks/does they have conditioned to a food plot isn't really that far off. If I put in a food plot, I usually can decide which deer to shoot. If I don't I struggle to find them as they are scattered around in various bedding areas and foraging incosistantly.

I guess Vince shute could be compared to any whitetail plot or anyone hunting bear over a baited site. I have hunted bears for years, I even had bait sites within 5 miles of shute one year, but of course hunting around free, safe, food sources turned out to be a waste of time, as our hits were never consistant enough to make them worth sitting on. Plenty of guides bait sights were positioned all around Shute as well, so I guess they all wanted some of those fat bears, but that is their right, just because your charge by the head for viewing doesn't really give you any more right to the animals than a bear guide or private hunter in my opinion.

[pulleye16]

I think we'll be okay!

[HooknHorns]

Why do you say that? Its getting harder and harder to kill a good bear unless you have a ton of private property. Now we have some nut jobs dictating which bears to shoot when they come into range even on your own land. Ontario is the only providence that has no spring hunt, how did that start?

[pulleye16]

Why do you say that? Its getting harder and harder to kill a good bear unless you have a ton of private property. Now we have some nut jobs dictating which bears to shoot when they come into range even on your own land. Ontario is the only providence that has no spring hunt, how did that start?

Would you shoot a radio collard Bear? The research benefits us as well. The only thing we need is to manage how many bears are collard. Most hunters would not shoot a collard bear but to restrict a hunter from shooting one would be hard...unless they use lighted or high vis collars.

[fivebucks]

Doesn't shooting a collared bear help you with the mortality causes of bears? Why shouldn't research show that? I see no reason to restrict a person on shooting a collared bear if they decide to do that.

[SkunkedAgain]

The OP is just as slanted as the people he seems to oppose, so take that for what it is with his agenda.

From everything that I've read, they are looking to spare research bears only and not ban hunting. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. I'm fine with sparing research bears if there is a limit on the number of bears. From what I understand, the DNR has 34 collared bears and the WRI has 14 that they attach ribbons to for study. So that's 50 bears out of 20,000 estimated in the state.

Quote:

Doesn't shooting a collared bear help you with the mortality causes of bears?

The DNR studies what happens to bears, so they don't mind seeing the mortality from hunting. The WRI is studying bear behavior, so they don't want the bears killed because there are no behaviors to study in a dead bear.

[jkcmj]

The DNR Commish came out with the DNR stance staying as is... Good. Now likely Rogers will try to push something through the legislature. We will have to see how that goes. Any legislation proposed would have to get through the outdoor commitees, which are largely pro-hunting, so my hope is by contacting commitee members specifically, we can convince them to keep any proposed legislation from ever getting on the floor for a vote. Once in commitee, any off the wall bill like this can be tabled indefinetely.

Duluth Tribune

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/192604/group/Sports/

Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/blogs/117087053.html

DNR Commish statements:

"Wildlife belongs to all Minnesotans,'' Landwehr continued. "It is a public resource, and wild game animals are lawful to harvest under state law. Placing a collar and flagging on a game animal shouldn’t 'reserve' it for one individual or group. Even in the name of research, individuals or groups shouldn’t be allowed to preempt legal harvest. It sets a terrible precedent for usurpation of public resources.''

· Finally, Landwehr said the issue should be resolved in the Legislature, adding that the DNR also loses collared bears to hunters each fall. "But in a wild population of wild animals, hunting is a function of their life cycle in a human-dominate landscape,'' he said.

[jkcmj]

The OP is just as slanted as the people he seems to oppose, so take that for what it is with his agenda.

From everything that I've read, they are looking to spare research bears only and not ban hunting. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. I'm fine with sparing research bears if there is a limit on the number of bears. From what I understand, the DNR has 34 collared bears and the WRI has 14 that they attach ribbons to for study. So that's 50 bears out of 20,000 estimated in the state.

The DNR studies what happens to bears, so they don't mind seeing the mortality from hunting. The WRI is studying bear behavior, so they don't want the bears killed because there are no behaviors to study in a dead bear.

I guess to say I have my own agenda is true. I own property in MN, hunt in MN, and respect private property rights. I stand up for those who own property in the areas they study bears and for those who wish to hunt any of our wild game species.

I do not own property in the study area, but have bear hunted the area since 2002. I have come to know several people in the area, both for and against Lynn Roger's research, and respect their rights to hunt and manage game populations on their own land. Lynn chose to do his research in this densely populated area so he could test theories on food habituated bears, and so he could study a population of bears that had been conditioned to people feeding them for many years already.

I have also worked with Lynn and Sue and spent a couple of weeks staying at the research facility in 2007 and during our last bear hunt in 2008. Lynn has helped me drag several bear out of the woods. At Lynn's request I brought venison up and shared it with him. I allowed them to shoot cryptic shots of me in the tree stand and shooting for the documentary that recently aired. I enjoy Lynn's research and enjoy watching the den cams, video footage they shoot, etc. I have visited sows with cubs in the dens with Lynn and Sue. I hope to work with them in the future as well.

I have worked just as diligantly asking area hunters to spare Lynn's research bears and to promote the value of the bears to hunters. To me personally, the greatest value of the bears is the increase in cub numbers(more bears in the area to hunt), the increased bear size(200 lbs yearlings are the norm), and the density of bears in the study area available to hunters. Territory sizes are much smaller due to less competition for food because of the vast amount of supplemental foods provided.

I also worked hard to help Lynn out when he was charged with Hunter Harassment back in 2006?? I wrote legislators, letters to the editor on Lynn's behalf, and personally spoke with the prosecuter and arresting officer Dan Star, indicating that I believed the prosecution was unwarranted. I certainly am not against Lynn Rogers or his research. I am however, against his latest tactics while trying to gain protection.

What I do not support is Lynn's attacks on hunters, villifying of hunters in the media, and the complete disregard for property owners and hunters rights that Lynn has shown recently. Lynn had called me when I initially expressed my dismay at what he was doing and was very insistant that he had to have protection and was willing to push everything now while he felt he would have public opinion in his favor(due to facebook and the Lily web cams). I have worked hard contacting legislators, DNR officials, and news media to protect hunters and property owners rights and will continue to do so, that is my agenda in all this.

[HeviShot]

I get several bears every year to come in wearing collars. This past season they added large numbered ear tags, which made it easy for us to determine how many we had. I have spoken with the researchers and 95% of the time the bears they collar are females, which I find to be true as most of mine have cubs, and the next season all there cubs are yearlings and they all have collars. Its spreads quickly. The main part of the there study was to see how far the bears range is, what I dont understand is why are they collaring the bears by me when im in the middle of northern MN? After speaking with the researcher who is collaring the bears in my area, I could agree with the rumors I have heard as she treats these bears as if "they were her children" and needs to realize that they are wild animals, not hers, not ours. I litteraly have hundreds of trail camera pics and videos of collared bears in just the past 4 years. If this passes, I cant even imagine how many more bears will be collared.

[remington 300]

THIS JUST IN!! AN ARTICLE IN THE TRIB. turns out collared bears will be legal to shoot still,but the dnr encourages peolple to pass on collared bears.

heres a qoute from mr.landwehr DNR commissioner

Placing a collar and flagging on a game animal shouldn't 'reserve' it for one individual or group," Landwehr said. "Even in the name of research, individuals or groups shouldn't be allowed to pre-empt legal harvest."

good for the dnr on taking this stance!WTG!!!

mike fjelstad.

[jkcmj]

Rogers group is encouraging Lily fans to write in to key legislators on the environmental commitees to encourage consideration of a bill for protection, likely to be forwarded by Rep. Phylis Kahn. We need people to write in to appose this so that the legislators get a balanced view on what this could mean to the future of hunting in MN if it is allowed to continue. Primary contacts to write:

Representative Denny McNamara, Chair

Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Policy and Finance

375 State Office Building

100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55155

651-296-3135

[email protected]

Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen, Chair

Environment and Natural Resources

Capitol Building, Room 303

75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55155-1606

651-297-8063

[email protected]

Hand written letters and phone calls get noticed more than email, but anything is better than nothing.

[CANOPY SAM]

I would never shoot a collared bear, nor would I eat a collard green! Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.

I know a lot of people at the administrative level with the MNDNR. These people are thoughtful, well educated, and rarely rush a decision without looking at all the variables. I trust their wisdom on these issues.

[Powerstroke]

Tom Landwehr, had a great editorial in the Outdoor News explaining his decision. In short, he said that researches have permits to legally collar and track bears for their research and hunters have permits to legally hunt and harvest all bears in the permit area. As long as all parties are acting within the rules of their permit, then the system is working accordingly.

I think its a smart level headed decision by the new commish. Its very fair and didn't cave to special interests.

[Musky Buck]

What is the purpose of collared bears again ? Research ? Tell me what it is we don't know about them already and what benefit the public will get from this and what truly helpful information has already been learned for x amount of dollars. I'd rather see collared moose as there is an issue there and their efforts should be pouring into that specie at present time, not counting bear skat or whatever is going on, if there becomes bear issues, then by all means have at it, maybe there is but I'm unaware at present time.

[jkcmj]

There is a ton of interesting stuff they are doing with the bear research, but none of it has to do with helping bears that I know of. They are doing medtronics research to see if they can learn about how bears survive and have healthy hearts despite eating till they are fat as pigs. Again for human benefit, not bears. The ones crying loudest for protection are also doing it for human benefit, financial and entertainment value. Again, little or no benefit for the bear population as a whole, just the humans that are trying to humanize the bears.

[Boar]

Muskybuck, i was reading thru this thread an thinking the same thing. Estimates 20,000 black bear roaming minnesota woods, reaserch is a good thing, the populations is healthy an growing, dont think there is some mysterious part of the puzzle that will rewrite all we already know about the black bear. Making collard bears illeagle to shoot is [PoorWordUsage]. i paid my fees, my time, gas bait, ect. wildlife belongs to the people of minnesota, dont make me choose anymore than I already do of what i can an cannot shoot. if its leagle to shoot let me choose. If its collared an leagle let me choose. sure would like to see the Majestic Moose more often in MN.

[Recon]

I've had the opportunity to work with DNR and their bear and wolf research in Camp Ripley, for the past 6 years or so. Mostly female bears are radio collared. This is done to study how far do bears roam, do they come back to the same den, health of the animals, growth rates, number of cubs and how often they have cubs. Not all bears den. Many just curl up in a swamp or next to a downed tree. The odds of a hunter encountering a collard bear have to be quite slim. Too much time and effort have gone into research to justify shooting any collared game. Lets not be so desperate to shoot that we can't let one with a collar walk! We all contributed to getting that collar on the bear.

[Muthagoose]

No problem leaveing a MN DNR Collar go,they provide intell back to the public FREE..

Unlike whatever the pay perview private research provides.

IF you consider culling,training/habit altering valuable research then this is all good.

It is so amazing how much the attitude of ELY has changed twords the bear research. Considering enterprising investments, manipulation was bound to happen.

Theres a HUGE difference between the state and the private research and results. If the state was smart they would somehow jump on the pay per view wagon and grab some of the $flow...

Do embedded collars count? How many state collared bears get to this level of neglect?

[jkcmj]

WRI "Researchers" continue daily attacks on hunters and DNR Wildlife officials. These people continue to ignore the real issues involved for their own selfish ends...We need to ensure private property rights and rely on Scientific based wildlife management instead of the twisted disney mentality that is sure to be harmful to the bears in the end...

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/lily-the-black-bear/update-march-6-2011-856-pm-cst/10150202046509478

A portion of the commentary is pasted below..

How could Commissioner Landwehr make such a lop-sided decision? He sided with a few dozen hunters who might be slightly inconvenienced instead of siding with science, tourism values, all you have done for the Ely economy, and the vast educational value of the bears to the public and to students. How could a decision like that make sense to a governor and commissioner? One guess would be to follow the dollars. Deer and bear hunters alone pay about $15-20 million dollars in license fees and taxes on their purchases of hunting equipment bring in another $11-14 million dollars directly to the DNR. These millions pay salaries and more. The wildlife officials who say that Minnesota’s wildlife belongs to all Minnesotans are actually having their salaries paid by hunters.

Can these officials avoid biases in their decisions when it comes to decisions that pit a slight bit of inconvenience to a few hunters against great benefits to thousands of people who want to learn?

Actually, wildlife watchers contribute much more to Minnesota’s economy, over a billion per year, but their money goes into the general economy, not into the paychecks of wildlife management officials.

Hunters and their money are indeed a powerful lobby.

[mrklean]

Actually, wildlife watchers contribute much more to Minnesota’s economy, over a billion per year

Thats funny right there they are trying to compare family vacation tourism money to nut jobs like themselves saying they put all that money back in the economy. After that incident last fall i checked out that facebook page for Lilly and man talk about a group of delusional people.

[SkunkedAgain]

I know that we disagree on this issue in general jkcmj, but I feel like pointing out a few things:

WRI "Researchers" continue daily attacks on hunters and DNR Wildlife officials.