Reintroducing Grizzlies

[Special T]

Do you think those Tar Heals up river give a damn what those bunny huggers want?

[konradcountry]

What is the justification for them being threatened? Someone needs to ask that question.

Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.

This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.

[Tbar]

It's geographic.  They ate listed as threatened in the lower 48.

[SpurInSpokane]

And there's some chance (not sure how high) of them being de-listed in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. But the Northern Cascade ecosystem doesn't have near enough grizzlies to maintain itself, which is why they want to bring in bears from other places.

[wolfbait]

Are grizzly bears becoming unbearable?

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-grizzly-bears-becoming-unbearable


"While these run-ins are a real danger to people, however, they're still far more fatal to bears. At least 42 GYE grizzlies were killed by people in 2010, up from 24 in 2009 and 37 in 2008 (the 2000-'07 average was 16 per year). Still, there are now 600 grizzlies in the area — plus a few hundred more across the U.S. Northwest, and 50,000 in Alaska and Canada — so extinction clearly isn't imminent. In fact, grizzlies came off the U.S. endangered species list in 2007, with officials citing a tripled population since 1975. But they went back on the list two years later, after a federal judge ruled the FWS had downplayed its own studies suggesting the bears may still be at risk. Old threats like hunting and logging are gone, but the judge cited a new, more subtle scourge: food shortages, many of which could worsen with global warming."


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Humptulips]

I don't see any "no action alternative" in their plans.
The real thing you are fighting is they have the money appropriated and by God they are going to spend it. Whatever it takes to justify their actions will get used.
Paychecks are at stake.

[Tbar]

I don't see any "no action alternative" in their plans.
The real thing you are fighting is they have the money appropriated and by God they are going to spend it. Whatever it takes to justify their actions will get used.
Paychecks are at stake.

I agree! I think the only hope is a robust 10j plan but doubt they would settle for that. Between all the grizzly activists and a calculated strategy they hold a strong advantage.  The hunting community lacks support and numbers in these settings. Get involved and submit comments to whatever alternative you support.

[buglebrush]

What is the justification for them being threatened? Someone needs to ask that question.

Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.

This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.

It's all about power and closing down all access.  It's not even just about closing hunting although that will come too.  This country has lost its mind! 

[Southpole]

What is the justification for them being threatened? Someone needs to ask that question.

Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.

This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.

It's all about power and closing down all access.  It's not even just about closing hunting although that will come too.  This country has lost its mind! 

[wolfbait]

What is the justification for them being threatened? Someone needs to ask that question.

Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.

This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.

It's all about power and closing down all access.  It's not even just about closing hunting although that will come too.  This country has lost its mind! 

 

I have noticed that many pro-wolf people are not pro-grizzly, maybe they have it figured that it won't be just the ranchers and ungulates that will do the suffering etc.. 

[Special T]

The lady from the Alpine Club made a comment against Grizzlies, and I'm not sure what her position is/was on wolves but she was pretty clear about her objection of having grizzly in the area.

[wolfbait]

 

[Colorado Kid]

 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 do 600 registered voters represent 80 to 90 percent of Washington's total population? How did they choose who to call for this survey? Excuse me for questioning the legitimacy of a survey conducted by a firm out of San Francisco, California, whose list of who they work for includes environmental organizations, not to show bias in the favor of the wanted outcome. I think using this survey as a basis for saying the majority of Washingtonians are in favor of recovery and in turn support reintroducing the grizzilies is misleading and poor science. They did not ask about relocation, they asked do you oppose or support efforts to help the declining population of grizzly bears in the North Cascades recover. They did not ask whether or not these 600 registered voters approved of relocating grizzilies, and how many would they approve of.  I am not against grizzilies in the Cascades, but I am against wasting funds, misrepresentation, and not taking into account all the factors before proceeding. I doubt if 80 to 90% of Washingtonians approve reintroducing grizzilies at the rate they speak of in Option D!

[CGDucksandDeer]

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.

[thatdamguy]

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

Here is a link to the Meat Eater podcast with Steven Rinella, it has one of the top bear biologist on this episodes and they talk about current bear populations and they mention the Cascades area re-introduction. Definitely worth listening to if you have time, I personally am against this re-introduction. Look at how much of a disaster our wolves re-introduction has been, I believe this will lead to complete shutdowns of some of the area's public land hunting.