The state of Wyoming announced that grizzly bear hunts are back, and the first one will take place this fall. It will be the first such hunt since 1974. Hunters will be able to capture and kill up to 22 of the large brown bears across a wide area east and south of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. After hearing from both opponents and supporters of the proposal, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted 7-0 on May 24 in favor of resuming the hunt, the Associated Press reported. “We heard from the people of Wyoming, they were supportive of this. It’s pretty clear the science supports this,” Wyoming Game and Fish Department spokesman Renny MacKay told the outlet. Hunting is set to begin Sept. 1 in mountains and basins with a relatively sparse grizzly population, before the hunting zone is moved closer to the park by Sept. 15 and end by Nov. 15, if legal challenges don’t interpose. Grizzly bears were removed from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered list in June 2017 after 42 years of federal protection, the National Park Service reports. The population of grizzlies around Yellowstone leapt from under 150 in the mid-1970s to 690 in 2017. “This achievement stands as one of America’s great conservation successes; the culmination of decades of hard work and dedication on the part of the state, tribal, federal and private partners,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said at the time, speaking about the grizzly’s removal of the federal protection list. But the news of the impending hunt has not been embraced by all. “This is a very sad day for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone region. Wyoming’s decision to allow up to  grizzly bears to be killed, including 13 females, just for a trophy on a wall marks a huge setback for grizzly bear recovery,” the Sierra Club lamented in reaction. “Allowing a trophy hunt of these majestic animals ‒ the second-slowest mammal to reproduce in North America ‒ so soon after they lost Endangered Species protections does nothing to build public confidence in state management of grizzly bears.” “Killing grizzlies for fun, when there is ample scientific evidence that the population is not growing, food sources have already been diminished, and the further effects of climate change is unknown, is preposterous,” added nature photographer Tom Mangelsen said. According to The Hill, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission has received over 185,000 comments opposing the proposed hunt. The commission, however, stands by its claim that they are taking a “conservative” approach to the matter.
And, indeed they are! The numbers went from under 150 in the 1970s to 690 last year.. And, they’re only allowing the harvest of 22. C’mon! The Sierra Club, as usual is being ridiculous and nonsensical. The enviro-wakos are losing their minds. Further, I’m sure there will be a meat-harvesting requirement as there is for any hunting tag. So, they won’t be just shot and stuffed. That’s what these lunatics want those not familiar with hunting to think actually happens. It’s bs; fake news. But, its the typical lies spread by these nutcases.
As hunting season rolls around, those looking to enjoy the sport in Michigan must wear “blaze orange.” A ruling this week by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission rejected a proposal for hunters to have the option of wearing “hunter pink” as their primary safety color in the woods, the Detroit Free Press reported. “The commission has retained the blaze orange requirement for hunter safety,” Ed Golder, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, told the Press. With the decision, Michigan joins Illinois, Maine and Montana in rejecting “hunter pink,” an option that has been touted as a way of encouraging more women to take up hunting. “Hunter pink” has been embraced in Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin, the Press reported. “We don’t know for certain whether the introduction of blaze pink camo will encourage more women to take up hunting, but many people do, so let’s hope it’s true,” Mike Bazinet, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s director of public affairs, told BearingArms.com earlier this year. “The broader trend of more clothing designed and tailored for women involved in the activity is definitely here, however,” Bazinet added. “Go into a Cabela’s or Bass Pro or virtually any other outdoor retailer, and you will find a wide selection of hunting apparel for women.” Michigan hunters can still wear pink to compliment an outfit, as long as one prominent piece of clothing — such as a hat, jacket or vest — is blaze orange and is “the individual’s outermost garment and be visible from all sides,” the commission ruled. “To be clear, this doesn’t mean that people can’t wear the pink. If you want to wear hunter pink, if you want to wear green, that’s fine. But you have to comply with our blaze-orange requirement,” Golder added. The blaze orange color, an international standard for safety, has resulted in fewer hunting-related injuries and deaths, according to the report, and has been a requirement in Michigan since the 1970s. The report also argued not everyone is in support of switching to hunter pink, and “many claim it divides the hunting community.” That certainly seemed the case earlier this year in Virginia, when state lawmakers debated the question. “There are women who like to hunt, but it’s not about fashion,” Sen. R. Creigh Deeds told Bearing Arms.com. “It’s about being in the woods. And the purpose you wear a color is so somebody can see you and they don’t shoot in your direction. I mean, blaze pink — I just think it’s silly.” Seems that some people in Michigan agree.
Indeed… The whole notion of “blaze pink” is patronizing toward women, and is putting some trendy fashion sense ahead of common sense. Blaze orange is universally accepted as the color that hunters should wear, and I’ve already heard from women who think the whole “hunter pink” think is ridiculous. The smart course of action would be to make “blaze orange” the standard for all states, to erase any confusion and make hunter safety the priority.