Read: H-W Magazine.Free: Contests & Raffles.Join: Washington for Wildlife.Listen: Northwestern Outdoors Radio.
I realize this is a little late, but is there another region in the US or world for that matter that has Grizzlies, but doesn't have either Elk or Caribou? Brown Bears don't count. I don't see Grizzlies living off grass and berries. We don't have many deer left, what are they supposed to eat in the North Cascades?
I don't see Grizzlies living off grass and berries. We don't have many deer left, what are they supposed to eat in the North Cascades?
The answer is NO! Why? Currently the frizz move up and down the valleys that take them back and forth to lightly inhabited areas of Canada. If introduced other places "down the valley" will be places like Arlington, Sulton, and Sedro Woolley, perhaps North Bend, Carnation and Duvall. The elk that were transplanted in the "Nooksack" don't seem to stay in the mountains they much prefer the farmers feild and peoples back yards... why would we think Bears would be any Different?Just because we Can, doesn't mean we Should...Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
A friend of mine who works in wildlife management in this state, (not WDFW) went through the grizzly bear recovery plan and it was his opinion that going to the meetings that they had around the state would have been a waste of time. he believes that they have already decided what they are going to do and just had the meetings so they could say they asked the public. It is kind of like WDFW saying they had broad public support because people want more opportunities to hunt and fish but most of the direct comments about the fee increases were negative. they chose to look at the data to show that a fee increase was supported when increased opportunity was supported not a fee increase. I have been to all kinds of meetings in the last few years in regards to wildlife and recreation and it is very common for the government entities to say the public wants something when they don't, and also to come into the public comment meetings already knowing wht they plan to do no matter what the public really says. IMHO
But the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation obligates us to use sound SCIENCE when considering wildlife management, something we hunters love to accuse the hardline enviros of abusing in favor of emotion (often rightfully so in my opinion). Science tells us these animals mostly chow down on sedge grasses, berries, insects and rodents.
I would not bring up hunting at all. I would take the defensive of hikers. Feds are more likely to have environmentalists and anti-hunters in their ranks. Some key points to make:People will be killed by grizzlies. This is an undeniable fact and there are cases where people used bear spray and were still attacked. So even if people are 100% prepared (which is an unreasonable expectation) people will still be killed. Western Washington is not Montana or Alaska. It has a dense coastal population and a lot of hikers. The Pacific Crest Trail goes through the North Cascades. This is not a remote area that is rarely accessed by people. So what is the point of killing people? What will you tell the families of the hikers? The grizzly population is not endangered so why sacrifice the lives of hikers?
Quote from: CGDucksandDeer on April 20, 2017, 01:49:56 PMBut the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation obligates us to use sound SCIENCE when considering wildlife management, something we hunters love to accuse the hardline enviros of abusing in favor of emotion (often rightfully so in my opinion). Science tells us these animals mostly chow down on sedge grasses, berries, insects and rodents.Conservation is more a matter of values than science. Science is a tool that can be used for any purpose including both protecting or eliminating a species. The real issue is that environmentalists value animals over people and will always advocate for the animal especially in the context of hunting. We saw this with Idaho where they didn't care if the wolf population could support a hunt. Once the population was deemed sustainable the environmentalists changed their argument to some arbitrary claim of "future concerns" and didn't care about data. Environmentalists only pretend to care about data. Once they get the upper hand they don't care about your scientific studies. They think bears are wonderful and hunters are evil. That is all there is to it. For environmentalists this is a political game and not a real debate about conservation