North Cascade Grizzly Bear Meeting in Darrington 5/14

[Kittman]

Until the "self proclaimed experts" get a handle on first how to manage wildfire conditions in this state it will never be a fit ecosystem here for supporting any significant number Grizzly Bears.  WA state population was about 2,853,214 in 1960, Grizzly Bears were essentially gone in the Cascade Mountains by 1967 in state, and now the human population has grown to over 7,170,351 here. 

IMHO it will be a doomed & foolish endeavor from the start.

First there was an idealistic concern for Strix occidentalis, then came Canis lupus fuscus, and now we get Ursus arctos horribilis.  I believe there are better uses for spending WDFW money that can be achieved.

[mfswallace]

Update from anyone who went??

[SWHUNTER]

I was there. The meeting was set up by the town of Darrinton to inform locals of what was going on and answer any questions. There was a good turnout of people there. The biologist  that was there explained that he had been trying to get hair samples for the past 10 years or so but hadn't come up with anything yet. He was a nice guy and seemed to be pretty knowledgeable. He had some thick skin too, because there were a couple guys who tried to rip him with comments and questions but he answered them well. The records from the Hudson Bay Fur trading company were used to estimate numbers back in the mid 1800's. Acording to the records around 4000 grizzlies  were trapped or shot in that time in the cascades. That number just seems high to me, but who knows.
Kirk Pearson was there and he asked what the plan was to bring in bears from somewhere else because of the state law of not transplanting animals from another state. The presenters did not have a good answer for this other than it might be possible for bears from the Selkirks to be moved in.
Conservation Northwest was there and I might be wrong but they seem to be pushing the issue.
One interesting comment from the National parks guy was th at there were no grizzlies left in the bitterroot  area. That seemed kind of wierd.
Lots of questions and comments from the crowd. The craziest thing I heard was that if grizzlies were reintroduced they would eat all of our salmon.
It was all good information and I thank the parks, wdfw biologist and the usfs for coming up and taking the time to talk to th e locals about their plans.
There will be a public comment period this fall.

[mfswallace]

Thanks 

[timberfaller]

Sounds like the typical "Public meeting"   People with thick skin, lots of "knowledge" smooth talking salesmen.

All "Public meeting" do is let the public vent and the "Law requirement" was filled by the presenting agency's.

IN Simple terms,  We did it and we'll do what we please, no matter what you peasants think or say!

Been to, way to many of them already!   and seen the outcomes!!

[cem3434]

As pianoman eluded to, they are already here in the North Cascades and have been for years. I personally seen a couple of them on different backcountry trips 15 to 20 years ago. I have also heard from other trusted sources of seeing them in the Cascades as well as in the Selkirks within the last 10 years.

[X-Force]

http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.com/

This is the project that has been looking for grizzly in the Cascades.

I wish I could have attended the meeting.

[mfswallace]

The bio can't be that real world knowledgeable if he doesn't have squat in 10 yrs! Should give his salary back!!

[JLS]

http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.19/the-forgotten-north-cascades-grizzly-bear?b_start:int=0#body

Interesting article, albeit a little dated.

Hair snares are a very effective way of monitoring grizzly populations, and were a major tool in the bear surveys in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE).  This study provided population estimates that were far and above what was previously believed. 

I'm on the fence on the issue.  Even a recovered population there would probably be pretty low, we have ~45 of them in the Selkirks (some in WA) and they rarely ever cause any trouble.  We did have some closures, which have been really great for the elk herds.

The casades could support some bears without causing too much trouble, but its going to be costly.  I don't know if it's really necessary.

Are you sure you aren't underestimating the quality of the habitat?  I'm guessing the plant base in the North Cascades is every bit as productive as that in Glacier National Park.  I could be wrong. 

Is it worth it?     There are very few animals that will strike more fear and more emotional responses than a wolf.  Ursus horriblus is one of few that can do so.

Some of my most memorable experiences in the Bob Marshall have involved grizzly sightings.

[Southpole]

Grizzlies have been floating in and out of the Cascades for years. Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there. What makes the bios think relocated grizzlies would stick around  Like pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness. They've been working on this project for a long time. I remember seeing pamphlets at Clarks in Marblemount that tells about the designation of the north cascades for wolf and grizzly habitat back in 2004. I think the project started in the 90's sometime. The Suattle river road washed out in a big storm back in 2003. I think the forest service left it in disrepair for longer than needed to keep people out for their little pet recovery projects. If it weren't for the Sauk-Suattle tribes it would still be closed today.

[KFhunter]

Like pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness.

I don't think it's a tool to keep people out of the wilderness, but it could be a tool to help create more wilderness by limiting the scope of activities in non-wilderness areas.

Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there.

The food source has increased dramatically in recent years with the addition of the wolf, as stated the flora is already there..the wolves have created more scavenging opportunities to keep them around.

[JLS]

Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there.

The food source has increased dramatically in recent years with the addition of the wolf, as stated the flora is already there..the wolves have created more scavenging opportunities to keep them around.

The grizzlies in the NCDE utilize plants as the majority of their diet, relative to the YNP population which relies on scavenging, predation, and fish as a majority of their diet.

[KFhunter]

Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there.

The food source has increased dramatically in recent years with the addition of the wolf, as stated the flora is already there..the wolves have created more scavenging opportunities to keep them around.

The grizzlies in the NCDE utilize plants as the majority of their diet, relative to the YNP population which relies on scavenging, predation, and fish as a majority of their diet.

No arguments there, "increased dramatically" might be too strong of wording but I do think the increased scavenging opportunity created by wolves is the final piece to tip the scales in the viability of this program.   Really not much else has changed.

[jstone]

I hear that the Grizzles are moving closer to Seattle cause those people taste better and there is no weapons allowed there..

[Southpole]

Like pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness.

I don't think it's a tool to keep people out of the wilderness, but it could be a tool to help create more wilderness by limiting the scope of activities in non-wilderness areas.

and put an end to hunting...