Return of the grizzly?

NorthCascades

This has been a controversy for years here.

Following the listing of the Lower 48 grizzly population under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified the North Cascades and five other areas—Yellowstone, Selkirk, Cabinet-Yaak, Bitterroot and the Northern Continental Divide— as grizzly recovery zones. Since then, most zones have seen steady bear population growth thanks to strong state and federal management and financial investment in recovery initiatives. In 1997, a recovery plan was developed for the North Cascades zone, and 10 years later, the Washington Legislature appropriated funding for an environmental analysis of grizzly restoration. But state and federal agencies were unable to begin work quickly, and when the recession hit the following year, the state withdrew funding for the project. The recovery plan languished, and the North Cascades grizzly seemed destined to disappear completely.

But in 2014, things turned around. This time, when National Park Service and the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission offered funding for an assessment, national, state and local agencies were ready. This January, the environmental impact statement was released, along with a draft plan to return the bears to the 6.3-million-acre North Cascades ecosystem. Now, biologists and advocates have renewed hope that one day they’ll see a viable grizzly population in the Cascades.

Return of the grizzly? | High Country News

There may be as many as half a dozen grizzlies already living in the North Cascades (in the Pasayten), but the region can support about 200. It will probably take decades to achieve that, and almost surely human intervention. If this gets off the ground at all.

The North Cascades is the wildest place left in the lower 48. This is historical grizzly habitat.

What do all of you think about re-introducing grizzlies (slowly) to augment a natural population here in their historic range?

3rdof7sisters

I am all for letting nature take its course. I know they reintroduced wolves in Yellowstone years ago, taking them from Northern Minnesota, and it was a great success. If there are grizzlies already in the North Cascades, why not wait and see if they can repopulate themselves to sustainable numbers? Or would the natural growth be too slow. What is the up side for populating the area with a predator this size, by bringing them in from areas that they are thriving with them now?

T1DCarnivoreRunner

I would love to see more grizzlies in the lower 48. TBH, I've done a ton of wilderness exploration and have never seen a bear of any type or a cougar in the wild at all. I spotted a bobcat while hiking once; as well as lot of other animals, but no bears or cougars. I've always wanted to experience a safe encounter and I'm taking a trip later this year to brown bear territory (specifically Glacier National Park). Maybe I will get lucky enough to see one of these majestic beasts.

3rdof7sisters

I have spent a lot of time in the Boundry Waters Canoe Area of Northeastern Minnesota, and have seen many, many black bears. They can be very big pests at campsites, especially if you do not tie your food in a tree at night. Although it is very common to hear wolves, I have never seen one in the BWCA, but they are definitely there.

NorthCascades

As a hiker and backpacker, I'm all for the return of the grizz.

3rdof7sisters wrote: »

What is the up side for populating the area with a predator this size, by bringing them in from areas that they are thriving with them now?

My guess is that there just aren't enough left for a viable population.