Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Should we bring grizzlies back?

NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 8,945Member Member Posts: 8,945Member Member
Grizzles were basically extirpated from Washington. The last shot was in 1967, the last confirmed sighting in 2010. There are thought to be half a dozen left, in the most remote and least visited corner of the state. (Pasayten Wilderness).

There has long been a debate about bringing them back, from the Rockies, and about easing their return through BC. The repatriation side is moving forward. North Cascades National Park is one of the biggest and least tamed wildernesses left in the lower 48, and is where they will live if they come back. To give you a sense of scale: I've gone 3 days without seeing another human while hiking across the park.

What do you think about big predators living in wild lands, but not too far away?


The North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone is anchored by North Cascades National Park. The area includes nearly 10,000 square miles of wild country. The North Cascades were singled out for grizzly bear reintroduction by federal scientists in 1997 after they determined the area had sufficient quality habitat to support a self-sustaining population of grizzly bears — as it did for thousands of years.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/feds-look-again-at-reintroducing-grizzly-bears-to-north-cascades/

Replies

  • puffbratpuffbrat Posts: 2,161Member Member Posts: 2,161Member Member
    I'm so glad you posted this. I had stopped paying attention and didn't realize the EIS comment period just started. I fully support restoring the grizzly population. They are important part of the ecosystem and recovering the migration corridor through north america is important to their survival. Like @bmeadows380 said, I think most of the resistance comes from people who think they will randomly be attacked by a bear without warning or provocation while just living life because that is how media portrays human-bear/predator interactions. But that is extremely rare and a poor excuse for eliminating a species.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,837Member Member Posts: 1,837Member Member
    Aren't the vast majority of bear attacks due to human....er....error? Keeping it tactful there. I would hate to see the species wiped out. Maybe post "Do not approach the bears as if they're your pets or cuddly cute snap chat picture buddies because they may kill you" signs every hundred yards or so in the more public areas.
  • jjpptt2jjpptt2 Posts: 4,592Member Member Posts: 4,592Member Member
    Is there reason to believe that, if reintroduced, the new population wouldn't meet the same fate as previous bears?
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,837Member Member Posts: 1,837Member Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Is there reason to believe that, if reintroduced, the new population wouldn't meet the same fate as previous bears?

    I would imagine hunting laws would have to be amended and enforced. That could prove to be a challenge though, given the opposition from local ranchers. That Cattlemans association could potentially hold enough sway to grind the process to a halt.
  • MotorsheenMotorsheen Posts: 14,249Member Member Posts: 14,249Member Member
    yes, they should continue to rebuild.


    hqdefault.jpg
  • puffbratpuffbrat Posts: 2,161Member Member Posts: 2,161Member Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Is there reason to believe that, if reintroduced, the new population wouldn't meet the same fate as previous bears?

    "This draft plan/EIS evaluates the impacts of the no-action alternative (alternative A) and three action
    alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D). All action alternatives would seek to achieve a grizzly bear
    restoration goal of 200 bears. The no-action alternative (alternative A) would be a continuation of existing
    management practices and assumes no new management actions would be implemented. “Alternative B:
    Ecosystem Evaluation Restoration” would seek to release up to 10 grizzly bears within the first 2 years of
    implementation, then monitor those bears for habitat use and human conflict through year 4. During
    year 4, managers would decide whether to repeat the initial releases of up to 10 bears over 2 years or
    switch to implementing alternative C. “Alternative C: Incremental Restoration” would seek to reestablish
    grizzly bear reproduction in the ecosystem by releasing up to 25 bears over 5 to 10 years. “Alternative
    Expedited Restoration” would seek to expedite grizzly bear restoration by releasing a sufficient number of
    bears that result in a population of 200 bears on the landscape, including bears added through
    reproduction, over approximately 25 years. In addition to the primary actions of each alternative, a
    number of elements would be common to the action alternatives. These elements include the restoration
    goal of 200 bears; guidelines for human-grizzly bear conflicts; capture, release and monitoring
    techniques; public education and involvement; access management; and habitat management. The
    option to designate the grizzly bear population as experimental under section 10 of the Endangered
    Species Act pursuant to a special rulemaking process is also considered."


    Basically, there isn't a guarantee but methods to try to prevent the same population loss is part of the proposal.

    ETA: quote is from the first page of the Draft EIS
    edited July 26
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 8,945Member Member Posts: 8,945Member Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Is there reason to believe that, if reintroduced, the new population wouldn't meet the same fate as previous bears?

    If I could say one thing to the grizzles, it would be "salmon and berries are waiting for you in the national park, you'll be safe there."

    Hunting is illegal within the park and larger management area, apparently 10,000 square miles. Not that illegal things don't ever happen there, I found a bike deep in the wilderness once. But most people won't hike 20 miles through very brushy and overgrown terrain to shoot a bear. Especially if there are few of them and the chances of putting in all that effort and not even seeing one are high.
  • AKTipsyCatAKTipsyCat Posts: 101Member Member Posts: 101Member Member
    We have about 50-60 Brown bears in Anchorage and about 300 (ish) Black bears. I love being able to catch the rare sighting. I hate not being able to leave bird feeders out and live in fear they will discover my bee hives. A friend recently had a bag of dog food stolen off her deck by a black bear... I guess my point is, I love my furry friends - but it directly impacts how you live. Trash needs to go out in the morning, not the night before, no bird feeders in the summer, walking on the trails adjacent to the creeks when the salmon are running means being SUPER AWARE of your surroundings, especially in the early morning, late evening... we've had lethal bear attacks (usually because they are protecting a recent kill or babies) and some people are just stupid and don't respect the danger.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,837Member Member Posts: 1,837Member Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Aren't the vast majority of bear attacks due to human....er....error? Keeping it tactful there. I would hate to see the species wiped out. Maybe post "Do not approach the bears as if they're your pets or cuddly cute snap chat picture buddies because they may kill you" signs every hundred yards or so in the more public areas.

    I try to get by with a select few “life rules”.

    1. Treat others as you would like to be treated (aka The Golden Rule).
    2. Don’t f—k with bears.

    I have found I don’t need any others.

    That's a great formula to live by. :)
  • whmscllwhmscll Posts: 2,027Member Member Posts: 2,027Member Member
    They’ve talked. About re-introducing grizzlies to California, too. As a frequent hiker and formerly frequent backpacker, I prefer to deal only with black bears and mountain lions, whose behavior I understand much better. I am terrified of grizzlies. It’s sad that the only grizzly in CA is on the state flag, but I am in no rush to see them back here. When I went backpacking in Alaska, the fear was real.
  • jjpptt2jjpptt2 Posts: 4,592Member Member Posts: 4,592Member Member
    gpbw0or8i71s.jpg

    I'm glad I read that to the end.
Sign In or Register to comment.