Okay, at the risk of getting folks mad at me, I've had something on my mind for a long time and this article sure triggered it.  I've had a lot of up close and personal experience with a lot of what most people justifiably consider to be dangerous animals, carnivores, herbivores, you name it.  I've been bitten, clawed, tossed, and, for lack of a better word, generally squashed.  But, I've learned some things.  First, animals aren't really as malicious as people think.  Second, they're generally much more intelligent than people think, if you devote enough quiet patience to discovering it.  Third, they don't like to be threatened or coerced or stalked or otherwise disrespected, all of which they take as potential threatening behavior.  And, fourth, they usually have far better and longer memories than people would believe.  If you give them a bad memory, they will hold it against you seemingly forever.

For example, I've watched Bison, both adult cows and their very young calves, being needlessly and very aggressively hazed off Horse Butte.  Based on my experience with very similar animals, I knew that those animals, especially those young calves, would remember that experience and incorporate it into their "instinctive" reactions to humans.  I've since noted some of the more recent Bison encounters in Yellowstone, one that included video coverage, where young bulls have come from what I would have considered a longer than normal distance with what I would have considered a higher than normal intensity to put the hurt on a visitor.  I have deep experience with similar kinds of animals and I've wondered whether those Bison might have been some of the ones rundown or otherwise manhandled by those ignorant hazers.

So, what does this have to do with trapping Grizzlies?  Well, culvert traps can certainly be memorably threatening to a bear; but, with proper attention to keeping the bear calm and to how the bear may be interpreting the actions, that memory can be minimized.  Foot snares are another matter, it would seem practically impossible to hold a bear vulnerable, out in the open, and tightly and painfully pinched around what passes for his or her ankle for what could be a prolonged period without the bear remembering it and incorporating the experience into his or her approach to future encounters with humans.  I know there will be rightwing morons (I suppose that's a redundant appellation.) who will claim that bears should be made to remember and fear humans; but, that little droplet of oozing stupidity ignores that fact that most bear attacks are the result of surprise and panic that are actually exacerbated by the level of fear on the bear's part.  The best case scenario is a bear avoiding humans out of caution, not as a threat that instinct, based on experience, has taught them must be neutralized at all costs.  

The "bears are handled in accordance with strict safety and animal care protocols developed by the IGBST" according to the article.  However, this is the same IGBST that has been relatively silent about the vulnerability of an effective gene pool of probably less than a thousand in these bears.  That silence has already spoken volumes about relying on the knowledge, expertise, or character of the IGBST.  I recognize that silence is probably the only way the current administration allows them to continue to exist; but, it still speaks to the thinking and motivation of any knowledgeable authority who would continue to play that role under those conditions.  Forgive my lack of trust.

Which brings me to my final point.  According to the article, the IGBST wants to "capture grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park to continue studies" of "bear distribution and other activities" that "are vital to ongoing recovery of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem."  But, given the frantic push by the current administration to restart trophy hunting of bears in the region, who could be so naive as to not wonder whether these studies are actually needed or even intended to gather objective scientific data to help the species or perhaps just as window dressing and greenwashing distractions to enable this notoriously corrupt current administration to arbitrarily and capriciously plow ahead with trophy hunting?  At best, I give it 50/50 either way.