Reintroducing Grizzlies

[SWHUNTER]

While grizzlies are more plentiful in other parts of Canada and the U.S., a small population lives on the Canadian side of the North Cascades and ventures into Washington state, although there have been no confirmed sightings in Washington since 1996, said Chris Servheen, USFWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator from Missoula, Mont.

That is false. One was photographed near Cascade Pass in October 2010.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/

Problem bears from other areas “absolutely” would not be brought into the North Cascades, he said.

Oh, no "problem bears." That's lovely. Only the sweet, snuggly ones will be introduced.

I think I've posted it twice on this site, but pretty sure that's not a grizzly. Pics from the same area same time of year with a huge hump backed black bear showed up online on nwhikers. Easy to call that a griz with just a skyline shot like that.   

Maybe jackelope could find the old thread with the pics. I'm not sure where it is.

[SWHUNTER]

Anyone else hit the Darrington meeting last night?  Way too many people for the space allowed. No speaker just posters. Good way to avoid conflict because there was over 200 people there ready to unload. Put my  note in the box and left. They shouldn't call these things meetings.

Go Zags!

[SWHUNTER]

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991996&postdays=0

Here you go fish vacuum. Page 3 of this thread. I'm guessing that's a black bear.

[Colorado Kid]

 Washington state does have a law that bans the importation of grizzly bears, but the federal government could still override that and re-introduce grizzilies by importing them. The ESA is a very powerful environmental law that carries heavy federal pressure. If you want to make it simple, then yes at least comment that you prefer option A, to demonstrate the support we need to show the FWA how we feel about their plans. If you want to give some good reasons that you're concerned, then here are some subjects you could include;                                                        1)Yellowstone has a recovered population of grizzilies, and yet the Bears have not been  delisted  because of environmental groups suing and tying the decision to delist up in court. This costs the agencies money that could be better spent on much needed restoration and improvements for our public lands. Given this history, how do we protect Washington state from experiencing the same fate when grizzly numbers have reached a threshold in the NCE. Also, if Washington state does not support the FWA plans in reintroducing the grizzly, it could lose any decision powers in the matter of the grizzly recovery.
2)The safety factor for backwood hikers, hunters, etc. should be considered. There is a lot of use on the Pacific Crest Trail. In 2010/2011 around the Yellowstone recreation area, two hikers were killed. There were two attacks in developed areas(where garbage and food is highly controlled) and thirty four attacks in back country areas in the Yellowstone recovery area during that time. The EIS talks about educating the public about garbage containment to lesson the risk of bear confrontations, but most of the NCE is wilderness and high country. Will this then lead to more restrictions and rules for enjoying the backcountry? Where is the data detailing encounters hunters have experienced being mauled included in the EIS. Only a part of the NCE is National Park, so hunting is allowed in most of the area. We need to protect what public lands we still have access to hunt on.
3)The reimbursement of lost livestock is questionable depending on Washington's stance, too. The federal government doesn't from what I've read have any current programs that would compensate loss, so it would be up to the state?
4)Another concern is the addition of another apex predator. The grizzly needs a large territory to survive. The NCE probably can't sustain grizzilies like the Yellowstone ecosystem without migrating herds, plentiful white pine stands, and high mountain moths which live under rocks to eat. If these reintroduced grizzilies roam out of the NCE, and into areas where the wolf population has already exploded, what then? Where are the studies showing the numbers of moose, deer, elk, and even the woodland caribou over in the northeastern part of the state, and how will this impact those populations? What will happen to our black bear population when they have to compete for a limited food source? How will this in turn impact how WSFW sets the hunting regulations? Will we become like the state of Nevada, where you have to apply to even hunt?
5)When making decisions on which option will be put in place, have all the different user groups been considered. The EIS touts an increase in tourism, yet how can that be? The NCE is mostly devoid of roads, so to safely view grizzilies like they do in Yellowstone isn't possible. Not too many people would want to view a grizzly bear close up in the wild on a hiking trail, or during a big game hunt.
Would the FWA close off recovery areas to recreation during the experimental periods? 
6)Has the FWA considered why the grizzy population hasn't naturally filtered in in larger numbers. Will the relocated bears leave for better pastures?                                 In conclusion, it is not only important for our state representatives to hear our comments, but our federal as well. Thanks for giving the time to read this, and hopefully spread the word please comment.

[bearpaw]

Last night our legislators held a telephone town hall meeting. One of the questions was if listeners supported bringing in grizzlies. Over 70% were opposed in the 7th legislative district.

[KFhunter]

sounds like they had another record number of calls and it went over by 30 minutes.

[fish vacuum]

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991996&postdays=0

Here you go fish vacuum. Page 3 of this thread. I'm guessing that's a black bear.

Page 3 of your link has someone thinking they got pics of the same bear. They posted the response they got from fish and wildlife. That response said the bear in the Seattle Times was a class 1 grizzly sighting based on the opinions of 14 out of 15 experts on their panel.

"leave the Sebille sighting as a class 1 grizzly bear sighting. It was a very spirited two-hour discussion but in the end, application of the scientific process carried the day."

[fish vacuum]

Here's a link to video of the Skagit County council meeting that specialT gave notes on.
http://skagit.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2483&meta_id=130263

[Southpole]

Everyone that spoke to support the recovery keep saying the 80-90 percent of the public supports it, they apparently didn't ask people that would be directly affected. Like one gentleman said, all the people that want it are from the cities or even other countries, sounds fair 

[wolfbait]

Everyone that spoke to support the recovery keep saying the 80-90 percent of the public supports it, they apparently didn't ask people that would be directly affected. Like one gentleman said, all the people that want it are from the cities or even other countries, sounds fair 

Sounds like WDFW's wolf introduction, same BS just a different critter.....

[Southpole]

I was disappointed that nobody brought up the mismanagement of our current over populated predators that Washington already has and the departments refusal to do anything about it. The presentation they had before public comments I noticed,, by the researcher's own admittance, grizzly bears in British Columbia were retreating out of that mountain range as well. Soooo, why are they retreating? Not enough food? If our north cascades won't attract B.C. grizzlies to stay and propagate they why do they think dumping more in there is going to work... what a waste money and time. Them greenies that like hiking the cascades better get used to hiking around their city blocks because I see some popular trail closers in the near future.

[fish vacuum]

Everyone that spoke to support the recovery keep saying the 80-90 percent of the public supports it, they apparently didn't ask people that would be directly affected. Like one gentleman said, all the people that want it are from the cities or even other countries, sounds fair 

Exactly.

[Special T]

That percentage of support sure doesn't represent the local population in Skagit county.

[wolfbait]

In another state.......

Dec 4, 2011

Officials debate way forward on grizzly bear management

"The Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle and Lolo national forests last week released a new grizzly access plan for the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly areas in response to another long-simmering court case. The plan may close more than 100 miles of backcountry roads over the next eight years, and could face new legal challenges from off-highway vehicle users who want to maintain their own access".

http://missoulian.com/news/local/officials-debate-way-forward-on-grizzly-bear-management/article_4aae18ae-1e08-11e1-9852-001871e3ce6c.html

[Southpole]

That percentage of support sure doesn't represent the local population in Skagit county.

You ignorant Skagit folks just need to be "educated" about grizzlies don't ya know.