I don't want Grizzlies spreading their range....There I said it

[peterk123]

I was just watching a Meateater YouTube vid where Cal is helping with some Grizzlies in Idaho and while I have put a lot of time into conservation personally I just can't get behind the grizzly push. There is already a lot of risk in the back country as it is and I saw what that grizzly did to Leonardo DiCaprio. What bothers me the most is that it seems most maulings the person didn't even have a chance to react. The bear bursts out of a bush and boom. Additionally, having a hunting season open so they at least would have some reason to fear us would be a massive uphill battle.

So we are encouraging a creature that we don't stand a chance against, that's highly aggressive, and has learned to not fear us. If you haven't seen one up close go to a zoo that has one and you will realize how insignificant you are compared to a full grown grizzly. In 15 years, they will have expanded to a large chunk of the Rockies. Why should my wife and kids risk being burdened with my death for me to go hunting?

Better stop driving. If you think bears are a risk of getting you killed, you really don't want to look at car stats.

 

[slick]

He did look at car stats.

I think the odds were 3.1x more likely to be attacked by a bear... but maybe I misread that.

 

[slick]

Your lifetime chances are roughly 1:100 to die in a car wreck, just was looking that up...Thats lifetime, so on a yearly basis of activity you would roughly be 3.1x more likely to get attacked by a grizzly bear.

Also, just because we face current risks doesn't mean we have to add more. Why don't you put a meth lab in your basement, you already could die going to work today?

 

[Pikespeak]

So if we don’t see something for awhile then it has no right to ever go back? Guess i’m not following your logic, only reason grizzlies, buffalo and wolves disappeared from every state is because of man, not nature.

Or are you saying once man ruins something lets never bring it back? Read up on the North American model for wildlife management, elk once were almost extinct as well and have been reintroduced into many of their historical ranges, they just don’t scare people.

Im saying range is a fluid thing, Im questioning what point in time is the goal post. There is a ton of research coming out that the perception that the US was just this open wildland with occasional Indian tribes is incorrect. Pre Columbus and Pre small pox the US population was higher than Europe. Effectively, the tribal situation we think of was North America after an apocalypse. They are figuring out there were much larger communities and cities here. They also terraformed the landscape, clearing a lot of trees, forest size expanded significantly the few hundred years after Columbus dropped off small pox. The whole environment changed. If this is all true, you can't find an environmental state that is untouched by humans and you are creating an ideal state in your head. Thats like saying dinosaurs should have all this territory still because at some point in time removed from all context they were in this spot.

Example below from a quick google search, interesting reading even outside of this discussion. There are books dedicated to the subject. Ignore the sensationalized anti European title.

European colonizers killed so many indigenous Americans that the planet cooled down, a group of researchers concluded

The diseases brought to North America by Columbus and other colonizers killed 90% of indigenous populations, sparking a global cooling.

www.businessinsider.com

Now, back to the overall discussion. I think I feel a bit better about being outdoors with grizzlies hearing from a lot of you from Montana etc. Still on the fence on the expansion. I was a kid in rattlesnake country and it seems similiar to rattlesnakes to me. I don't worry about them. I subconsciously follow certain rules I learned growing up such as watch where you step, don't go blasting through tall grass, avoid holes and other things that look "snakey" don't stick your hands in places you can't see, etc.

 

[grfox92]

Why is the burden of proof on me? Do you have evidence that their range didn't expand and contract over the years as the environment changed? I imagine my viewpoint is more accurate unless people think grizzlies existed with the dinosaurs.

I don't think we are discussing whether there is a program to expand grizzlies or not, that keeps being brought up. We are talking unencumbered expansion, however that looks.

The burden of proof is on you because you because you said

"The comment “ They are supposed to be here” is debatable at the onset. Based on what? Animal ranges change constantly without human impact. "

And no one has ever thought that the disappearance of the grizzly bear from it's historic range at the begining of the 20th century was caused by anything other than human intervention. Do you believe that they disappeared because of natural or evolutionary reasons?

I'm out on this one. It's starting to seem like you are just trolling here.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[mossyoak52]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

The problem is that they are going to be the single point of failure on our loss of hunting. Not because they are competition, but because the non-hunting public will do anything to protect them. I am talking about the social media life soccer mom who has never been to the Rockies. She might even live in the UK or Australia. Social media has given this twat a voice that they never had before.

A friend of mine works for the park service, the amount of BS and drama they get for some idiot who will never use the park, never has used the park but loves to create social media drama. Drama that results in far left leaning environmental terrorist threatening the housing area in the park. Threatening park employees that have zero to do with wolves, bears or anything else. Just because the park does the "right thing" by publicizing the problems with a park and bears. Removing problem bears brings the idiots from far off places like Russia, Japan, San Francisco and Jackson, WY who are just fanatical about wildlife.

These idiots sway liberal government idiots with their sensationalism.

Some nimrod moving from to Wyoming or Montan from California who just retired from the San Francisco Fire Department and can finally sell their house and move, isn't the enemy of hunting. It is sensationalized idiots who see wildlife as a cute cuddly resource that should never be hunted.

I
Ok we will agree to disagree. You have a good day I never said they shouldn't be hunted I i
They shouldn't of be allowed to expand into their Native range.
We won't lose our hunting rights quit the are mongering never happen we live in a heavily infested part of Montana we deal with grizzyly and wolves twice aweek we hunt and fish the same grizzly infested area summ spring winter and fall we visit both glacier and yellowstone several times a year
I r respect your opinion but it won't change my stance if you don't like my opinion then hit the ignore button makes no difference to me. As That's what I intend to do you have a great summer

 

[Peter_Martin]

I’ve always been of the opinion that apex predators should be reintroduced throughout their historical ranges, but that those predators should be managed (ie: hunted) to keep their populations at whatever level we determine is appropriate.

The wilderness should be wild.

 

[Pikespeak]

He did look at car stats.

I think the odds were 3.1x more likely to be attacked by a bear... but maybe I misread tha

The burden of proof is on you because you because you said

"The comment “ They are supposed to be here” is debatable at the onset. Based on what? Animal ranges change constantly without human impact. "

And no one has ever thought that the disappearance of the grizzly bear from it's historic range at the begining of the 20th century was caused by anything other than human intervention. Do you believe that they disappeared because of natural or evolutionary reasons?

I'm out on this one. It's starting to seem like you are just trolling here.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

No I’m not trolling, look at the post above yours. I’m calling out that when people say wild it doesn’t mean anything as we’ve been terraforming the continent for 1000+years. There’s no state of the country that you can say yup that’s the natural state of things and this point in time everything should freeze. It’s not there.

And where does wild start and stop? Outside of where your personal impact is? Why’s the line suddenly start with grizzlies?

I’m repeating myself here because some of these arguments are just using subjective terms that fall apart when poked with a feather.

If me bringing some more complex thought outside of *grunt* grizzlies bad, grizzlies good. Yea, I guess I’m a troll.

I'll end here unless someone wants to explore some of these points because I don't want to keep saying the same things. Some of the people from areas with grizzlies have made the concept more palatable. I wouldn't say Im fully on board but definitely more comfortable. Appreciate everyone's input.

 

[Billy Goat]

There’s no state of the country that you can say yup that’s the natural state of things and this point in time everything should freeze. It’s not there.

Is there really a natural state?

Glaciers covered a lot of the landscape, then they receded.
Wildfires were common, restructuring landscape, sometimes they were slow burning, but other times they occurred during high drought periods and caused intense damage.
Then the Natives also burned areas, likely partly for Game, and partly to control their competitors.

Game populations rise and fall, predators have their hand in it, but so does weather.

Now we also have invasive species, so the areas that are left to be "natural" need to be managed to control what is there so it's what it's supposed to be.

To me, change is a constant. We definitely have an impact on it, but nothing has ever stayed the same.



I do native habitat restoration, I drive around in a tractor having arguments with myself all the time about a lot of this.

 

[Pikespeak]

Is there really a natural state?

Glaciers covered a lot of the landscape, then they receded.
Wildfires were common, restructuring landscape, sometimes they were slow burning, but other times they occurred during high drought periods and caused intense damage.
Then the Natives also burned areas, likely partly for Game, and partly to control their competitors.

Game populations rise and fall, predators have their hand in it, but so does weather.

Now we also have invasive species, so the areas that are left to be "natural" need to be managed to control what is there so it's what it's supposed to be.

To me, change is a constant. We definitely have an impact on it, but nothing has ever stayed the same.



I do native habitat restoration, I drive around in a tractor having arguments with myself all the time about a lot of this.

I think we are making the same point. You should check out the link I put a few posts up around North America pre and post small pox. Probably will be interesting to you.

 

[Billy Goat]

I think we are making the same point. You should check out the link I put a few posts up around North America pre and post small pox. Probably will be interesting to you.

I have read a lot of that stuff over the years. Just the eastern coastal population is thought to have been larger than the population of western Europe when Columbus sailed. The first settlers had it easy as they found large areas that had already been cleared.

I wasn't quoting you to agree or disagree, just further the statement.


Man always wants to have their impact tho, we need to have manicured lawns, white fences to state our power over things. Eliminate something cause it's bad, then bring it back because we should, it's really just a control exercise.

 

[3forks]

I didn’t read every post in this discussion, but 9 pages of this!?

Are you guys familiar with the phrase “nature abhors a vacuum“?

If you’re not, the definition is any absence of a regular or expected person or thing will soon be filled by someone or something similar.

Buzz leaves the board, and Mossyoak52 and Pikespeak seem to be vying to replace his presence.

 

[Buglebrush]

Bears are amazing creatures and are to be respected. If you hate them, then you might want to consider a different hobby.

I think you missed the point, or maybe I expressed myself badly. I hate them because they are so overprotected, and we can't hunt them. I have been hunting, hiking, and camping in Grizzly infested country for over 30 years too. If they weren't so overprotected, they'd have a healthier fear of man and it wouldn't be such a big deal if you had to kill one in self-defense.

 

[Pikespeak]

I think you missed the point, or maybe I expressed myself badly. I hate them because they are so overprotected, and we can't hunt them. I have been hunting, hiking, and camping in Grizzly infested country for over 30 years too. If they weren't so overprotected, they'd have a healthier fear of man and it wouldn't be such a big deal if you had to kill one in self-defense.

Ah gotcha, thanks for the clarification

 

[Pikespeak]

I didn’t read every post in this discussion, but 9 pages of this!?

Are you guys familiar with the phrase “nature abhors a vacuum“?

If you’re not, the definition is any absence of a regular or expected person or thing will soon be filled by someone or something similar.

Buzz leaves the board, and Mossyoak52 and Pikespeak seem to be vying to replace his presence.

And you showed up to make one of the few negative comments, the discussion has been pretty civilized. You didn't have come to the thread if you weren't interested.

 

[Mojave]

This is not how statistics work. Everything is an independent equation.

A monte carlo equation is not accurate [This is an equation where you mix more items]

 

[Pikespeak]

This is not how statistics work. Everything is an independent equation.

A monte carlo equation is not accurate [This is an equation where you mix more items]

Yea we went through that earlier, another equation is used but no one could provide the formula. Stats was 15 years ago for me.

 

[Mojave]

Yea we went through that earlier, another equation is used but no one could provide the formula. Stats was 15 years ago for me.

That's funny.

Naval Safety Center used to run the stastistic to the fleet that if you drove straight through from San Diego to Norfolk you had a 1 in 3 chance of dying (over 3000 miles and about 50 hours in the car). Ok, so how did they get this statistic, send 100 Sailors or Marines on that Death Race? No, they probably just bullshitted it.

I think gohunt does the same thing with states like New Mexico, Arizona and others that look at all your applications before moving onto the next guy. It is a 40% educated guess when Monte Carlo type simulations are involved, where there are multiple inputs. High degree of bullshit in them posting statistics on situations like that.

But what if a bear shits in the woods, what are the odds that someone will see him?

 

[3forks]

And you showed up to make one of the few negative comments, the discussion has been pretty civilized. You didn't have come to the thread if you weren't interested.

Oh please... I chimed in on page 5 back when you were still trying to figure out what the chances of getting into a car accident on the way to hospital after getting mauled by a grizzly were.

After skimming the next 4 pages, it doesn’t look like this discussion has changed anyone’s mind.

 

[displacedtexan]

Im saying range is a fluid thing, Im questioning what point in time is the goal post. There is a ton of research coming out that the perception that the US was just this open wildland with occasional Indian tribes is incorrect. Pre Columbus and Pre small pox the US population was higher than Europe. Effectively, the tribal situation we think of was North America after an apocalypse. They are figuring out there were much larger communities and cities here. They also terraformed the landscape, clearing a lot of trees, forest size expanded significantly the few hundred years after Columbus dropped off small pox. The whole environment changed. If this is all true, you can't find an environmental state that is untouched by humans and you are creating an ideal state in your head. Thats like saying dinosaurs should have all this territory still because at some point in time removed from all context they were in this spot.

Example below from a quick google search, interesting reading even outside of this discussion. There are books dedicated to the subject. Ignore the sensationalized anti European title.

European colonizers killed so many indigenous Americans that the planet cooled down, a group of researchers concluded

The diseases brought to North America by Columbus and other colonizers killed 90% of indigenous populations, sparking a global cooling.

www.businessinsider.com

Now, back to the overall discussion. I think I feel a bit better about being outdoors with grizzlies hearing from a lot of you from Montana etc. Still on the fence on the expansion. I was a kid in rattlesnake country and it seems similiar to rattlesnakes to me. I don't worry about them. I subconsciously follow certain rules I learned growing up such as watch where you step, don't go blasting through tall grass, avoid holes and other things that look "snakey" don't stick your hands in places you can't see, etc.

Unless you have some reputable source saying that European colonizers extirpated dinosaurs Shut up about them.

If you come to my house and drink all my tea, I can gripe about you drinking all my tea. If I gripe about not having any whiskey because of you though... I'm a lunatic.