Reintroducing Grizzlies

[smittyJ]

In June 2016, the Wenatchee World  published an article titled; Enviro Group: Poll finds support for grizzly recovery. In the article it states that 600 registered voters were surveyed from 39 counties. How does that represent 80 to 90 percent of Washington's population?

The summary sheet for that poll is available here: http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf

It certainly has it's flaws and oversights, notably sampling statewide (both urban and rural counties) but not oversampling the seven counties that specifically make up the North Cascades. But as someone who has conducted focus groups and polling, I'd say it is statistically solid, even if the degree of support it indicates is dubious.

I for one support grizzly bear restoration AND management in the North Cascades. This is a native species who's population is struggling, isolated and extremly unlikely to recover naturally at this point. As sportsmen and conservationists, I believe we have an obligation to support the recovery of native species, be they elk or bears. God created them both, who are we to pick one over the other when we were the direct cause of their decline?

I do most of my hunting around Leavenworth and on the west side of the Methow Valley, and that area is already bear country. We already carry spray and usually a large sidearm, keep a clean camp, consider our gutpile and meat management, etc. 5-25 grizz over the next several decades, in an area where the trails, roads and access policies have already been officially managed for grizzlies since the North Cascades was designated a federal Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in 1991 is not going to have a significant affect on my backcountry pursuits, those of my family, or our property in the area.

I was especially pleased to see the option for a 10(j), or Designated Experimental Population, included in the draft grizzly restoration proposals. Even more because some of the diehard enviro groups are pissed about that potential policy. This exemption from the usual requirements of the ESA would give wildlife managers, and landowners, significant flexibility to move bears that wander out of wilderness areas, or take lethal action to resolve conflicts. With this type of proper management, ideally eventually at the state level, I have no problem with grizzly recovery in our region.

Since Grizzlies have been recorded from Canada to Mt Rainier over the years, My question would be, Why are they struggling? If the habitat has not supported them in the past what good is the re-introduction?

[Knocker of rocks]

http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/episode-055-bear-biologist-frank-vanmanen/

He sounds just like Tony Beets from "Gold Rush" without as much &*&&%$%$^  swearing.

[Special T]

In June 2016, the Wenatchee World  published an article titled; Enviro Group: Poll finds support for grizzly recovery. In the article it states that 600 registered voters were surveyed from 39 counties. How does that represent 80 to 90 percent of Washington's population?

The summary sheet for that poll is available here: http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf

It certainly has it's flaws and oversights, notably sampling statewide (both urban and rural counties) but not oversampling the seven counties that specifically make up the North Cascades. But as someone who has conducted focus groups and polling, I'd say it is statistically solid, even if the degree of support it indicates is dubious.

I for one support grizzly bear restoration AND management in the North Cascades. This is a native species who's population is struggling, isolated and extremly unlikely to recover naturally at this point. As sportsmen and conservationists, I believe we have an obligation to support the recovery of native species, be they elk or bears. God created them both, who are we to pick one over the other when we were the direct cause of their decline?

I do most of my hunting around Leavenworth and on the west side of the Methow Valley, and that area is already bear country. We already carry spray and usually a large sidearm, keep a clean camp, consider our gutpile and meat management, etc. 5-25 grizz over the next several decades, in an area where the trails, roads and access policies have already been officially managed for grizzlies since the North Cascades was designated a federal Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in 1991 is not going to have a significant affect on my backcountry pursuits, those of my family, or our property in the area.

I was especially pleased to see the option for a 10(j), or Designated Experimental Population, included in the draft grizzly restoration proposals. Even more because some of the diehard enviro groups are pissed about that potential policy. This exemption from the usual requirements of the ESA would give wildlife managers, and landowners, significant flexibility to move bears that wander out of wilderness areas, or take lethal action to resolve conflicts. With this type of proper management, ideally eventually at the state level, I have no problem with grizzly recovery in our region.

You might be unaware of this but the introduction of wolves was an experimental population. The same reasoning was given then, just as it is now. It's a line of B'S and history has already shown how this will work out.

[Knocker of rocks]

Interesting that at 1:03 both Dr. van Manen and Steve Rinella voice their doubts about the latest and greatest model of elk decline in Yellowstone, namely that grizzlies are munching baby elk because cuthroat trout have been effectively removed from their diet by introduced ran amok lake trout munching the cutty's.

This model has caught on with the media and was an episode on NatGeo.  I'd think that the authors and scientists of the study are much less certain of the veracity of this model than the producers of NatGeo Wild are.

I would be happy to see every lake trout in the west gone, but the biologist like the populations in Yellowstone's Lewis lake as a genetically pure source for repairing the Great Lakes.

[Romulus1297]

They are getting ready to helicopter bears to Stehekin and time is running out for comments.  Stehekinheritage.com

[Elkaholic daWg]

Such a great idea.......                                          

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grizzly-bc-1.4039252


Grizzly attack leaves B.C. forestry worker with significant injuries
Conservation service doesn't know what sparked attack

[trophyhunt]

Such a bad idea, there is no good reason to add to the population.

[Southpole]

They don't know what sparked the attack?! It's a freekin' grizzly bear!! I does what ever it want's to. They always want to "rationalize" animal behavior as if they're human They'll have to catch the perp, send it to anger management for bears, then re release it back to the wild to ease people fears of bears, that should work 

[hunter_sean08]

They're natural born killers. I'm not sure what thrills the yogurt and granola folk about getting anywhere near a grizz.. My buddy went to school in Idaho. He had a roommate who has had encounters with them on multiple occasions in Idaho/Wyoming, including one in which a bear followed his tracks for several miles on a hunt. I'm not sure if the bear was just following hoping for a gut pile at the end of the rainbow or if he was actually hunting the guy. Regardless, that's spooky. He'd look back on his tracks to see the bear a few hundred yards out sniffing his tracks on the ground. I'm all for responsible management of our wildlife, but let's be honest, how can we believe WDFW/USFWS will be anything more than irresponsible when it comes to something like this? If you think it's bad with the wolves, just think about the possibility of dealing with both. I don't care if there's 25 of them or 2500 of them. At some point, someone will get hurt, whether they're seeking the bears out for a picture or just minding their own business as they tend to their backyard.

[HighlandLofts]

We already have GRIZZLIES here why hurry it? On our DIME! These TREE HUGGERES CAN KISS OFF!

[wolfbait]

Scientists predict expansion of US grizzly bear habitat

http://www.therepublic.com/2017/04/02/us-grizzly-bears/

[cougforester]

I was at the state Society of American Foresters and The Wildlife Society convention last weekend, and there was a 30 minute discussion about the reintroduction of grizz. At the end of the program, I asked the presenter "How was the desired number of grizzlies (200)" determined?" He gave an answer basically saying that studies have shown carrying capacity to be between 250-350, so they aimed for 200 as a sort of "palatable number". I started thinking about that more after the presentation, and my tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory is that they are aiming for this number to guarantee the grizz never reach population numbers to begin the process of being delisted and revert back to state management.

The more I think about the answer he gave and the reasoning behind it, the more sense it makes. 

[smittyJ]

I was at the state Society of American Foresters and The Wildlife Society convention last weekend, and there was a 30 minute discussion about the reintroduction of grizz. At the end of the program, I asked the presenter "How was the desired number of grizzlies (200)" determined?" He gave an answer basically saying that studies have shown carrying capacity to be between 250-350, so they aimed for 200 as a sort of "palatable number". I started thinking about that more after the presentation, and my tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory is that they are aiming for this number to guarantee the grizz never reach population numbers to begin the process of being delisted and revert back to state management.

The more I think about the answer he gave and the reasoning behind it, the more sense it makes. 

I would ask, If the area can sustain 350 bears and there have been bears confirmed from the Canada border to Mt Rainier why have they not multiplied over the years?

[Skyvalhunter]

Because they haven't hooked up thru Match.com yet

[SpurInSpokane]

On the "200" number:
Given the size of the area in the Northern Cascades range that we're mostly talking about, when the number of grizzlies is below a certain amount, the population will decline, even if left alone. Basically, there's not enough breeding and survival to make up for losses over time.
That number, based on a report I read and linked earlier in this thread, is somewhere around 150-200 for the Northern Cascades.
Less than that, and left alone, the grizzly population in the Northern Cascades will hit zero.
If that's also close to the carrying capacity (not an argument I'm making, but based on the reply just above), the population won't be able to grow much beyond that number anyway.
So the reason they're looking at supplementing is that the current population levels are below the densities required to grow, and the reason they haven't grown over the years is that, yes, they're below carrying capacity, but they're also below growth density.