Open comment period for grizzly bear introduction

[bearpaw]

People in WA are already sharing the land with many predators, the predators are already moving back and forth on their own, there's certainly no need to waste taxpayer money transporting them from place to place to appease a few greenies!

[Special T]

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

[Ironhead]

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

Because I would like to know what is going to make up the other 15 to 25 percent of their diet. It doesn't seem like a good idea to introduce another predator if they don't have a current working model, why should we be the Guinea Pigs?
 I think they will likely move down to less populated areas with higher deer concentrations such as the Sinlahekin, Methow and Entiat Valleys.
This is just another shot in the Dark, like the original wolf introduction in Idaho. More BS being shoved down our throats.

[winshooter88]

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

[bearpaw]

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

I couldn't agree more... it's just a show to say they did the public meetings!

[jasnt]

[konradcountry]

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.

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

[konradcountry]

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?

[Special T]

I concur with emphasising hiking.  At the Skagit County meeting an older lady from the Alpine club emphasised the likely hood of Griz hunting women whom are near their time of the month.  She was pretty upset about introduction, and by no means a hunting fan. She was also part of the core group that got the N Cascades turned into a National Park. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

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?

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.

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

Truer words have not been spoken.