Feds want reintro of grizzly's in northern Cascades

[Archer86]

I am not see the problem with this why not introduce more bears into that area? I do wish they would do it close to hiking trails near Seattle so those thinking these bears are so great can get the real experiance

 

[Sand Wrench]

Comment submitted:

"The presence of 376 million humans in North America has permanently altered and fractured the original ecosystem of that area. As the purveyors of these changes, we have the responsibility to actively manage that altered ecosystem for the mutual benefit of wildlife, the landscape and humans. Because of their unique physical and psychological characteristics, grizzly bears are not appropriate for re-introduction into all available habitat throughout their historic range. As they do not have direct mutualistic relationships with other dependent species, it is therefore appropriate that we make prudent decisions about where grizzly bears should be allowed and not allowed to abide. With a growing population of 7.9 million people, and a high volume of outdoor recreational and commercial activity, Washington State is not an appropriate location for the intentional introduction of grizzly bears. We should instead use those resources for improved management, study, and support of the existing grizzly bear populations in the more remote and less inhabited areas of North America. I hope to continue seeing grizzly bears during my future backcountry travels, just not in Washington State."

Feel free to critique my comment, just make sure you submit your own comment during the comment period.
COMMENT

 

[Idahank]

I grew up less than two miles from a problem grizzly release site near Nordman, Idaho and lived most of my life in the Selkirk range, which has one of the highest densities of of grizzlies in the lower 48. I’ve had one in my camp at night (which we scared off just yelling at it), but NEVER had a problem with one. Black bears however, I’ve had plenty of problems, especially wherever the real problem is - high densities of those nearly hairless bears that walk on two legs.

 

[waterhome]

I'm guessing they think the wolves didnt do enough damage to the elk and deer populations so lets see what grizzlies will do to help

Seriously!

 

[Archer86]

I grew up less than two miles from a problem grizzly release site near Nordman, Idaho and lived most of my life in the Selkirk range, which has one of the highest densities of of grizzlies in the lower 48. I’ve had one in my camp at night (which we scared off just yelling at it), but NEVER had a problem with one. Black bears however, I’ve had plenty of problems, especially wherever the real problem is - high densities of those nearly hairless bears that walk on two legs.

Selkirk range might be the highest in Washington but is no where near the top of the highest densities in the lower 48 for grizzly bears. Selkirk range is estimated at around 60 grizzly bears split between Canada and the us I believe

 

[hjg_wy]

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the North Cascades. My understanding is that bears likely pass through the area now and in the recent past, but densities are super low. I tend to be somewhat wary of reintroductions in areas that are already occupied, albeit sparsely, since it can be costly, socially fraught, and may introduce unwanted genetics to an area.

That said, I actually think the remote nature of the North Cascades makes it a pretty good spot for building up a sustainable but small grizzly population while minimizing conflict. My personal stance is that I want to see more bears on the landscape, but at low densities and in places were conflict is minimized. I also want to see hunting used to keep bears within socially reasonable regions and to eliminate problem bears. Would all those ideals come to pass upon reintroduction in Washington? I don't know. Given what I know at the moment, I am supportive of a reintroduction effort, despite the challenges it poses.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Would all those ideals come to pass upon reintroduction in Washington? I don't know. Given what I know at the moment, I am supportive of a reintroduction effort, despite the challenges it poses.

This states commission couldn't effectively manage a lemonade stand. We are in the top tier of states for highest black bear densities per capita, and they voted against season setting for the spring bear special draw hunt because a bunch of uneducated, bleeding heart, appointed degenerates decided revenue from anti groups was more important than effective management. If you're not a Washington resident that has personally witnessed the downfall of our ungulate populations as a result of piss poor liberal management decisions, I kindly ask that you keep that support to yourself.

 

[centershot]

Why not Washington DC? For the same reasons we don't want them?

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Its a risk you run when you bring them into the woods. Just like when you strap them into a car.

Our ancestors would laugh at how afraid we have become. At the same time, we're more deadly than we've ever been. What a strange paradox. If the indians lived in North America for thousands of years with only a bow and arrow, certainly we can do it now. And a lot of the really terrifying stuff they had to deal with has gone extinct.

I hear your point, but our ancestors never had to worry about shooting a bear, for any reason. Not the case with esa protection.

 

[t_carlson]

I hear your point, buy our ancestors never had to worry about shooting a bear, for any reason. Not the case with esa protection.

I doubt they even tried to shoot them unless an attack was in progress. You aren't going to last very long picking fights with grizzlies when you're carrying a chokecherry bow and obsidian points.

If you are being attacked by a bear, USFS will not prosecute the case. I know because I've seen it in my law practice. Google search the people who have been cited. Its either ID mistakes made during black bear season or downright poaching.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

I doubt they even tried to shoot them unless an attack was in progress.

Really? Ever thought why Grizzlies currently inhabit a fraction of their historic range? People killed them. Probably because they were smart enough to know they killed people and livestock.

Oh and they didn't have to worry about hefty fines or jail time.

My point is you make the case "Our ancestors would laugh at how afraid we have become"......I think they'd laugh at the protection given to apex predators.

 

[t_carlson]

Really? Ever thought why Grizzlies currently inhabit a fraction of their historic range? People killed them. Probably because they were smart enough to know they killed people and livestock.

Oh and they didn't have to worry about hefty fines or jail time.

My point is you make the case "Our ancestors would laugh at how afraid we have become"......I think they'd laugh at the protection given to apex predators.

Did you read the sentence right after the one you quoted? Or did you just stop there and started typing a reply while the veins were popping out of your forehead?

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Did you read the sentence right after the one you quoted? Or did you just stop there and started typing a reply while the veins were popping out of your forehead?

I don't have any veins popping out. I apologize if you feel as if this discussion upsets me. It doesn't. I'm not trying to be abrasive.

No need to be condescending.

But to reiterate, since we're talking ancestors and all...I think they'd laugh at the protection given to apex predators.

 

[t_carlson]

I don't have any veins popping out. I apologize if you feel as if this discussion upsets me. It doesn't. I'm not trying to be abrasive.

No need to be condescending.

But to reiterate, since we're talking ancestors and all...I think they'd laugh at the protection given to apex predators.

I think when you posted "Really?" condescending replies entered the chat.

Regardless, given the fact that our ancestors nearly hunted about every BG species and some of the birds to near extinction by the early 1900's, they would probably laugh at the protection given to any wildlife.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

I think when you posted "Really?" condescending replies entered the chat.

Regardless, given the fact that our ancestors nearly hunted about every BG species and some of the birds to near extinction by the early 1900's, they would probably laugh at the protection given to any wildlife.

"Really?" Is what upset you? I apologize for that, it wasn't my intention.

I think our discussion has run its course, I'll let you get back to hoping people get mauled by bears.