Post by: Jingles on February 26, 2015, 01:02:15 PM
http://blog.alpineinstitute.com/2015/02/reintroduction-of-grizzly-bears-to.html (http://blog.alpineinstitute.com/2015/02/reintroduction-of-grizzly-bears-to.html)
Reintroduction of Grizzly Bears to the North Cascades
The American Alpine Institute just received the following release from North Cascades National Park:
Public Invited to Open Houses on Options for
Grizzly Bear Restoration in North Cascades Ecosystem
Public comment period open through March 26, 2015
SEDRO WOOLLEY, Wash. – The public is invited to participate in a series of informational open houses regarding restoration of grizzly bears in the North Cascades ecosystem. The meetings are being held by the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as part of the Grizzly Bear Restoration Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for the North Cascades ecosystem. This is the first opportunity for public involvement in the EIS. The purpose of the EIS is to determine whether or not the agencies will take an active role in restoring the grizzly bear to the North Cascades Ecosystem.
The public open houses will be held at these locations and times:
Winthrop March 3, 5-7:30 pm
Red Barn Upper Meeting Room
51 N. Hwy 20
Winthrop, WA 98862
Okanogan March 4, 5-7:30 pm
Okanogan PUD Meeting Room
1331 2nd Ave N
Okanogan, WA 98840
Wenatchee March 5, 6-8:30 pm
Chelan County PUD Auditorium
327 N. Wenatchee Ave.
Wenatchee, WA 98801
Cle Elum March 9, 5-7:30 pm
Putnam Centennial Center Meeting Room
719 East 3rd Street
Cle Elum, WA 98922
Seattle March 10, 5-7:30 pm
Seattle Pacific University Bertona Classroom 1
103 West Bertona
Seattle, WA 98119
Bellingham March 11, 5-7:30 pm
Bellingham Central Library Lecture Room
210 Central Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98227
In addition to these open houses, the public is invited to submit written comments at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/NCEG. (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/NCEG.) Comments may also be submitted through March 26, 2015, via regular mail or hand delivery at: Superintendent’s Office, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 810 State Route 20, Sedro Woolley, WA 98284.
“This is an important phase in the process of assessing environmental impacts,” said NPS Pacific West Regional Director Chris Lehnertz. “Public comment at this stage is critical to ensure that all issues are considered.”
The FWS listed the grizzly bear as a threatened species in the lower 48 United States in 1975. The species was listed as endangered by the state of Washington in 1980.
“The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan calls on us to fully consider the restoration of the grizzly bear in the North Cascades, and this process will ensure we solicit the public for their input before putting any plan into action,” said FWS Pacific Regional Director Robyn Thorson. “We will continue to work with our partners to make this an open and transparent process.”
The North Cascades ecosystem encompasses 9,800 square miles in the United States and another 3,800 square miles in British Columbia, Canada. The United States portion of the ecosystem includes North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
A few grizzly bears have recently been sighted in the Canadian part of the ecosystem, but no grizzly bears have been sighted in the United States portion for several years.
The U.S. Forest Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are cooperating agencies on the EIS. Funding for the EIS is provided by the NPS. The U.S. Forest Service, FWS and other cooperating agencies and partners will provide technical support throughout. For more information on grizzly bear recovery, visit http://bit.ly/NCEgrizzly (http://bit.ly/NCEgrizzly) or nps.gov/grizzly.
Post by: krapmit on February 26, 2015, 01:31:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 26, 2015, 01:36:11 PM
Post by: Jingles on February 26, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 26, 2015, 03:04:37 PM
Post by: netcoyote on February 26, 2015, 03:08:48 PM
Anybody else run across something like that down there. It was around Keenes.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 26, 2015, 03:11:27 PM
Post by: netcoyote on February 26, 2015, 03:17:28 PM
I was told today that Washington State monies cannot be used to do this stupid idea. Anyone heard of this ? I figured Communist Northwest and their like thinking, anti everything groups, would foot the bill since they love screwing everything up for us....
No poorly planned government initiative was every left unfinished by lack of funding... :DOH:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 26, 2015, 03:21:55 PM
I was told today that Washington State monies cannot be used to do this stupid idea. Anyone heard of this ? I figured Communist Northwest and their like thinking, anti everything groups, would foot the bill since they love screwing everything up for us....
No poorly planned government initiative was every left unfinished by lack of funding... :DOH:
Ya ain't a kiddin' brother......... :bash:
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 26, 2015, 03:25:08 PM
Oh wait....... :bash:
Post by: HunterStrait on February 27, 2015, 07:16:20 AM
WDFW needs to get their **** together and fix what needs to be fixed, before they even think about putting grizz into this state.
Post by: bobcat on February 27, 2015, 07:32:18 AM
Post by: skeeter 20i on February 27, 2015, 08:26:46 AM
Waste of money. We've got homeless people, hungry people, kids who can't afford a college education, and they have extra money to spend on transplanting grizzly bears in a place where they already exist? Who comes up with these ridiculous ideas?
:yeah:
Post by: 4fletch on February 27, 2015, 07:54:40 PM
just like the wolves we will get more grizzliesWaste of money. We've got homeless people, hungry people, kids who can't afford a college education, and they have extra money to spend on transplanting grizzly bears in a place where they already exist? Who comes up with these ridiculous ideas?
:yeah:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 27, 2015, 08:01:07 PM
The WDFW has nothing to do with the proposed grizzly bear restoration in the North Cascades.
I heard the WDFW cannot use state monies to reintroduce grizzlies, it has to be private. Is that what you heard too ?
Post by: Windwalker on February 27, 2015, 08:35:30 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi965.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae137%2FSnoplop_photos%2FBear%2520hunters_zpsovexugo4.png&hash=74bfbba97bc374cb20be7a749af4aa2c641b8524) (http://s965.photobucket.com/user/Snoplop_photos/media/Bear%20hunters_zpsovexugo4.png.html)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 27, 2015, 08:48:09 PM
They can reintroduce Grizzlies as long as they reintroduce bear hunting like it use to be.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi965.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae137%2FSnoplop_photos%2FBear%2520hunters_zpsovexugo4.png&hash=74bfbba97bc374cb20be7a749af4aa2c641b8524) (http://s965.photobucket.com/user/Snoplop_photos/media/Bear%20hunters_zpsovexugo4.png.html)
I can't even imagine having hunting days of old................cool picture by the way...
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on February 27, 2015, 09:16:21 PM
Year 1, carried a 44 mag and could hardly work.
Year 2, worked Ok 44 mag on hip but very nervous.
Year 3, worked easy and hardly thought about the bears
Year 4 -8, 44 mag in back-pack and loaded with bird shot for ptarmigan.
I saw grizzlies a total of less than 20 times. Black bears regularly.
Post by: Windwalker on February 27, 2015, 10:48:09 PM
After 8 years (summer seasons average 100-130 days) in Alaska working in grizzly country every day (total of around 1000 days), my bear paranoia went like this.
Year 1, carried a 44 mag and could hardly work.
Year 2, worked Ok 44 mag on hip but very nervous.
Year 3, worked easy and hardly thought about the bears
Year 4 -8, 44 mag in back-pack and loaded with bird shot for ptarmigan.
I saw grizzlies a total of less than 20 times. Black bears regularly.
There is a huge difference between an avid outdoorsman and a highway of REI gear/food toting families from Seattle wandering around on trails for a weekend.
If they dropped them off 100 miles from the nearest house is different from transplanting them where they salivate at the smell of beef in the lower pastures.
Not that they would do that- or threaten cattlemen / home owners with felony arrest for defending themselves.
And keep in mind the numbers they want for "a healthy grizzly bear population in the North Cascades"- "Although a viable grizzly bear population number cannot be exactly specified at this time, scientists currently estimate that it may be comprised of between 200 to 400 bears."
In Montana:
Can people shoot grizzly bears that are threatening livestock after delisting?
No. Because all three states plan to classify grizzlies in the GYA as game animals, state laws make it illegal for citizens to shoot or injure grizzlies, unless they are threatening human lives.
All such mortalities count against the mortality limits set in the Conservation Strategy so these mortalities will be strictly controlled in order to stay below the mortality limits. Outside of the national parks, grizzly bear/livestock conflicts will be addressed by State wildlife managers under procedures outlined in the Conservation Strategy.
"Ruling in the case of a Montana rancher who lost 84 sheep in a single month to marauding grizzlies, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no constitutional right to defend property against wildlife protected under federal law."
Meanwhile $1.000 later in Idaho- ( I admit this guy may have been trigger happy, but he thought his kids were outside)
COEUR d'ALENE - The U.S. Attorney's Office in Boise announced Wednesday it is dismissing the pending misdemeanor criminal charge against Jeremy M. Hill for the killing of a grizzly bear on his Porthill property on May 8.
"After having family over for dinner on Mother's Day, I was outside at the basketball hoop with four of my children. I went into the house to take a shower. When I finished showering and was getting dressed, my wife, Rachel, looked out the bedroom window and saw three grizzly bears at the edge of our yard, but very close by, standing near a small pen that held the children's 4-H pigs. The last time I saw my children they were outside. I grabbed a rifle and ran out on the deck. I yelled for the children, but did not hear a response. The bears did not move away from the pen as I was yelling. Fearing for the safety of my children, I shot the bear that was closest to the house. The other two bears ran across part of the lawn and into the brush."
Regulations prohibit removing nuisance bears, except when authorized by government authorities. Hill, who pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Coeur d'Alene last month, has been issued a notice of violation and paid a $1,000 fine.
Wait, don't eat my children - I have to call Fish & Game!
"The United States Attorney's Office well understands Mr. Hill is a concerned husband and father who wants to protect his family," said Olson. "Anyone who observes or hears of a grizzly bear near campsites or residences must immediately contact fish and wildlife officials."
As if WDFW isn't already over burdened.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 27, 2015, 11:45:06 PM
Interesting, I would have done the same thing I think. What is this obsession with protecting wildlife that they think is so endangered yet so dangerous in certain areas and numerous in different places. Just because they are not common here doesn't mean they are endangered. We don't have the room for a large or medium population of grizzly's in Wa.After 8 years (summer seasons average 100-130 days) in Alaska working in grizzly country every day (total of around 1000 days), my bear paranoia went like this.
Year 1, carried a 44 mag and could hardly work.
Year 2, worked Ok 44 mag on hip but very nervous.
Year 3, worked easy and hardly thought about the bears
Year 4 -8, 44 mag in back-pack and loaded with bird shot for ptarmigan.
I saw grizzlies a total of less than 20 times. Black bears regularly.
There is a huge difference between an avid outdoorsman and a highway of REI gear/food toting families from Seattle wandering around on trails for a weekend.
If they dropped them off 100 miles from the nearest house is different from transplanting them where they salivate at the smell of beef in the lower pastures.
Not that they would do that- or threaten cattlemen / home owners with felony arrest for defending themselves.
And keep in mind the numbers they want for "a healthy grizzly bear population in the North Cascades"- "Although a viable grizzly bear population number cannot be exactly specified at this time, scientists currently estimate that it may be comprised of between 200 to 400 bears."
In Montana:
Can people shoot grizzly bears that are threatening livestock after delisting?
No. Because all three states plan to classify grizzlies in the GYA as game animals, state laws make it illegal for citizens to shoot or injure grizzlies, unless they are threatening human lives.
All such mortalities count against the mortality limits set in the Conservation Strategy so these mortalities will be strictly controlled in order to stay below the mortality limits. Outside of the national parks, grizzly bear/livestock conflicts will be addressed by State wildlife managers under procedures outlined in the Conservation Strategy.
"Ruling in the case of a Montana rancher who lost 84 sheep in a single month to marauding grizzlies, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no constitutional right to defend property against wildlife protected under federal law."
Meanwhile $1.000 later in Idaho- ( I admit this guy may have been trigger happy, but he thought his kids were outside)
COEUR d'ALENE - The U.S. Attorney's Office in Boise announced Wednesday it is dismissing the pending misdemeanor criminal charge against Jeremy M. Hill for the killing of a grizzly bear on his Porthill property on May 8.
"After having family over for dinner on Mother's Day, I was outside at the basketball hoop with four of my children. I went into the house to take a shower. When I finished showering and was getting dressed, my wife, Rachel, looked out the bedroom window and saw three grizzly bears at the edge of our yard, but very close by, standing near a small pen that held the children's 4-H pigs. The last time I saw my children they were outside. I grabbed a rifle and ran out on the deck. I yelled for the children, but did not hear a response. The bears did not move away from the pen as I was yelling. Fearing for the safety of my children, I shot the bear that was closest to the house. The other two bears ran across part of the lawn and into the brush."
Regulations prohibit removing nuisance bears, except when authorized by government authorities. Hill, who pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Coeur d'Alene last month, has been issued a notice of violation and paid a $1,000 fine.
Wait, don't eat my children - I have to call Fish & Game!
"The United States Attorney's Office well understands Mr. Hill is a concerned husband and father who wants to protect his family," said Olson. "Anyone who observes or hears of a grizzly bear near campsites or residences must immediately contact fish and wildlife officials."
As if WDFW isn't already over burdened.
Post by: Jingles on February 28, 2015, 07:19:21 AM
[/quote]Interesting, I would have done the same thing I think. What is this obsession with protecting wildlife that they think is so endangered yet so dangerous in certain areas and numerous in different places. Just because they are not common here doesn't mean they are endangered. We don't have the room for a large or medium population of grizzly's in Wa.
[/quote]
Well going to be the devils advocate here and use the reasoning of the opposing side. Yes we do have room just have to keep the people out of the bears habitat areas by closing portions of the Paysayten Wilderness and the North Cascades National Park.
Unless you are wearing blinders and have your head totally up your --- you can see a closing of the Park and wilderness during certain times of the year AFTER the bears have been RE INTRODUCED for public safety reasons
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 28, 2015, 07:43:16 AM
After 8 years (summer seasons average 100-130 days) in Alaska working in grizzly country every day (total of around 1000 days), my bear paranoia went like this.
Year 1, carried a 44 mag and could hardly work.
Year 2, worked Ok 44 mag on hip but very nervous.
Year 3, worked easy and hardly thought about the bears
Year 4 -8, 44 mag in back-pack and loaded with bird shot for ptarmigan.
I saw grizzlies a total of less than 20 times. Black bears regularly.
Brian Patrick of the UW got munched on when he was working in the Brooks Range under Peter Misch
Post by: trophyhunt on February 28, 2015, 09:27:33 AM
Interesting, I would have done the same thing I think. What is this obsession with protecting wildlife that they think is so endangered yet so dangerous in certain areas and numerous in different places. Just because they are not common here doesn't mean they are endangered. We don't have the room for a large or medium population of grizzly's in Wa.
[/quote]
Well going to be the devils advocate here and use the reasoning of the opposing side. Yes we do have room just have to keep the people out of the bears habitat areas by closing portions of the Paysayten Wilderness and the North Cascades National Park.
Unless you are wearing blinders and have your head totally up your --- you can see a closing of the Park and wilderness during certain times of the year AFTER the bears have been RE INTRODUCED for public safety reasons
[/quote]Yup, that is probably what will happen, less area to hunt or hike in. Less hunting in the wilderness......
Post by: The scout on February 28, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 28, 2015, 09:35:03 AM
do you really think the bears will no to stay in that portion of the pasayton or national park. maybe your jokingfrom what I've read it seems we are on the same page, I am NOT for bringing these bears back, anywhere. They will go where ever they want to once they need new territory.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 28, 2015, 04:46:18 PM
Post by: Windwalker on February 28, 2015, 06:39:15 PM
Then a group of A-holes shows up and BAM :yike: - shoots a big fat dart in your keister.
Wake up with a sore butt and a collar in a trailer going to who knows where.
No wonder they get grouchy when they see people.
Post by: wolfbait on February 28, 2015, 10:37:55 PM
Unsworth will help out....................
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 (http://missoulian.com/news/local/officials-debate-way-forward-on-grizzly-bear-management/article_4aae18ae-1e08-11e1-9852-001871e3ce6c.html)
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on March 01, 2015, 04:48:45 PM
After 8 years (summer seasons average 100-130 days) in Alaska working in grizzly country every day (total of around 1000 days), my bear paranoia went like this.
Year 1, carried a 44 mag and could hardly work.
Year 2, worked Ok 44 mag on hip but very nervous.
Year 3, worked easy and hardly thought about the bears
Year 4 -8, 44 mag in back-pack and loaded with bird shot for ptarmigan.
I saw grizzlies a total of less than 20 times. Black bears regularly.
Complacency kills, lucky you didn't go back for year 9. :bdid:
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2015, 04:51:10 PM
After 8 years (summer seasons average 100-130 days) in Alaska working in grizzly country every day (total of around 1000 days), my bear paranoia went like this.
Year 1, carried a 44 mag and could hardly work.
Year 2, worked Ok 44 mag on hip but very nervous.
Year 3, worked easy and hardly thought about the bears
Year 4 -8, 44 mag in back-pack and loaded with bird shot for ptarmigan.
I saw grizzlies a total of less than 20 times. Black bears regularly.
Complacency kills, lucky you didn't go back for year 9. :bdid:
apply the same flawed logic to concealed carry, it's very similar.
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2015, 08:12:13 PM
Published on Nov 5, 2012
Audio of Attack of Timothy Treadwell and friend Amie Huguenard on 6 Oct 2003. ....Warning! Extremely Graphic and Disturbing Audio..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lCkFygaaQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lCkFygaaQ)
Post by: Bob33 on March 01, 2015, 08:18:31 PM
Does the name Timothy Treadwell belong somewhere in this discussion?I guess I'm not following how. I haven't read of anyone on here doing what he did.
"Treadwell was known for getting extremely close to the bears he observed, sometimes even touching them and playing with bear cubs. "
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 01, 2015, 08:28:06 PM
Numerous photos on hiking sites where hikers try to get close to bears (even though they may be black bears--for now) and get the bear in the background of their selfies.Does the name Timothy Treadwell belong somewhere in this discussion?I guess I'm not following how. I haven't read of anyone on here doing what he did.
"Treadwell was known for getting extremely close to the bears he observed, sometimes even touching them and playing with bear cubs. "
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2015, 09:31:42 PM
Does the name Timothy Treadwell belong somewhere in this discussion?I guess I'm not following how. I haven't read of anyone on here doing what he did.
"Treadwell was known for getting extremely close to the bears he observed, sometimes even touching them and playing with bear cubs. "
That comment was in regard to complacency around grizzlies.
After 8 years (summer seasons average 100-130 days) in Alaska working in grizzly country every day (total of around 1000 days), my bear paranoia went like this.
Year 1, carried a 44 mag and could hardly work.
Year 2, worked Ok 44 mag on hip but very nervous.
Year 3, worked easy and hardly thought about the bears
Year 4 -8, 44 mag in back-pack and loaded with bird shot for ptarmigan.
I saw grizzlies a total of less than 20 times. Black bears regularly.
Complacency kills, lucky you didn't go back for year 9. :bdid:
apply the same flawed logic to concealed carry, it's very similar.
Post by: longstevo on March 01, 2015, 09:53:42 PM
Could have swore I saw one down at Mt Adams about five years ago. Biggest sumbeech I'd ever seen.
Anybody else run across something like that down there. It was around Keenes.
A griz around Mt. Adams...? :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2015, 09:55:58 PM
.02
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 02, 2015, 04:05:50 AM
It's all about control.............. greenies love to close access and Pugetropolis is loaded with them. (look what they elected for governor)Unsworth will help out....................
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 (http://missoulian.com/news/local/officials-debate-way-forward-on-grizzly-bear-management/article_4aae18ae-1e08-11e1-9852-001871e3ce6c.html)
Post by: boneaddict on March 03, 2015, 07:44:06 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 03, 2015, 08:06:20 AM
"The full impact of wolves on the ungulate herds of WA state hasn't been fully realized and won't for many years, as their spread across the state continues. Introducing grizzlies in to the No. Cascades at this point in time puts at jeopardy the lives and livelihoods of many Washingtonians who depend on hunting to maintain their way of life. Until such point as the WA wolf plan reaches its established goals and the effectiveness of game management on wolf populations is analyzed, the introduction of another apex predator would be foolhardy. Pandering to those who would have all humans out of the woods and hunting no longer allowed is a big mistake and a costly one. Please don't consider this program until the actual impact of wolves if fully realized. Thank you for your consideration of my comments."
Post by: Jingles on March 03, 2015, 05:36:22 PM
To me it is extremely funny that the North Cascades Ecosystem and Grizzly Bear recovery Zone 1 has the same damned boundaries as the North Cascades International Peace Park that the Feds tried to jam up our --es back in the 80's and 90's.
Why the feds even have these meeting is a wonder to me they are going to do what they damned well please regardless of what the locals and citizens want or how they feel.
Oh and no there was no actual presented lecture Just a bunch of federal employees drawing overtime.
Guess it is time to reload the 06 with 220 grain bullets instead of the 180's and aim for gut shots.....
Post by: Windwalker on March 03, 2015, 06:46:28 PM
Remember some of that from the last go around. Varying human intervention criteria depending on the zone.
Zone 1- Amounted pure Grizzly habitat and any human that disturbed them was in for a hassle/fine regardless if they ate you or not.
Zone 2- If you got eaten they would take it under advisement - may or may not be a problem (for the bear) but a good likely hood of a fine if it choked when he ate you.
Zone 3 They would begrudgingly look into the circumstances - fines are a given and they may move the bear if its grumpy.
Zone 4 Included Baker Lake and low land areas. You could protect yourself but someone better have teeth marks to prove just cause for shooting. And yes they are allowed to eat your horse, cattle, dogs, cats, chickens & pigs.
All I see is one map with a big chunk outlined.
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/north-cascades-ecosystem-grizzly-bear-restoration-plan-environmental-impact-statement (http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/north-cascades-ecosystem-grizzly-bear-restoration-plan-environmental-impact-statement)
Haven't found details about one of the Idaho releases years ago but heard plenty. Which is the main reason I am leary about all of this.
Went something like this.
Guy got stopped by a road block of troopers on a road to the back country. Campers pulling trailers are let out. Talks to a few of them and finds out they went in and rousted the campers in local parks and told them they had to vacate. Nothing to see here.
Sees trucks and trailers up the road. Is told to vacate.
Grunts and yea well we'll see about that. Hides the rig and bush whacks to see what is up.
Watches them unload 13 or 14 bears (turns out they were problem park bears) and were released by a park!
Several got into livestock and others wandered into some local barn yards etc.
Word gets out and loggers/locals swap their 30-30 lever guns for 300-338 mags.
Bear problem 'goes away' in a couple of weeks.
Officials are bent and out to hang anyone, mum is the word.
Locals are bent and no longer trust anything said about bear release programs.
Post by: Jingles on March 03, 2015, 07:00:40 PM
The map outlined in the above post by windwalker is the Grizzly bear recovery zone 1 other areas are over in ID, MT WY.
THis map is also the outline of the North Cascades International Peace Park of the 80 's and 90's
JUst a quick search of the old maps sorry not better
Post by: boneaddict on March 05, 2015, 03:43:49 AM
Post by: Gobble on March 05, 2015, 05:37:21 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 05, 2015, 06:47:24 AM
They have always had a presence in Wa. I saw sign and scat of one in Storrey Creek area in the Teanaway back in the early 90s that was confirmed by the WDFW. One had also made its way along the cascades near Mt Rainier/Mowich area and was confirmed by scat/hair samples around the same time, My wifes uncle is a retired gamey and confirmed it as well.
Well if some have their way, more will be brought in. This is the bone.
Post by: netcoyote on March 05, 2015, 07:44:46 AM
They have always had a presence in Wa. I saw sign and scat of one in Storrey Creek area in the Teanaway back in the early 90s that was confirmed by the WDFW. One had also made its way along the cascades near Mt Rainier/Mowich area and was confirmed by scat/hair samples around the same time, My wifes uncle is a retired gamey and confirmed it as well.
Well if some have their way, more will be brought in. This is the bone.
So it wasn't so far fetched for me to think I saw one down near Mt Adams?
As far as worrying about all the government "meetings" and public decision making on the distribution of bears, I think all we need to do is look at the introduction of wolves as an example. There seemed to be ample evidence that "someone" was facilitating releases before public officials were admitting to it in announcements and meetings.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 05, 2015, 07:48:04 AM
Post by: netcoyote on March 05, 2015, 09:26:23 AM
I'd find a grizz near Mt. Adams difficult to believe, although not impossible.
Agree. I'm not going to swear on a bible that it was a griz, because I don't have any other proof or evidence other than my mental image for a brief instant as the critter jogged across the road in front of me, full side profile, maybe 50 yards ahead. I was too rattled at the time to look for prints, I had my dog with me and had passed through the same area several hours earlier. I just made a mental note of it and have been looking for someone else to either see something of it or some sign.
I'd never argue the point, just not worth it, and I know that wasn't your intent p'man. I'm satisfied that it was one of the most memorable things I have ever seen in the wild.
Post by: huntrights on March 05, 2015, 10:04:57 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12.035 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12.035)
"RCW 77.12.035
Protection of grizzly bears — Limitation on transplantation or introduction — Negotiations with federal and state agencies.
The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.
[2000 c 107 § 211; 1995 c 370 § 1.]"
Post by: mfswallace on March 05, 2015, 10:31:21 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12.035 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12.035)
"RCW 77.12.035
Protection of grizzly bears — Limitation on transplantation or introduction — Negotiations with federal and state agencies.
The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.
[2000 c 107 § 211; 1995 c 370 § 1.]"
:tup: can't wait for the answer in cle elum...
Post by: Jingles on March 07, 2015, 09:31:28 AM
Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs.
This is not A WDFW program it is a USFWS program and therefore does not apply to the restrictions.. Knowing the way WDFW and the feds lie about everything else tell me you can't see the use of this play on words being used.
Consequentially here come the problem bears from all over hells half acre if some haven't already been brought in
Post by: netcoyote on March 07, 2015, 04:21:46 PM
Not saying I know but what I see as their answer is in the second sentence
Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs.
This is not A WDFW program it is a USFWS program and therefore does not apply to the restrictions.. Knowing the way WDFW and the feds lie about everything else tell me you can't see the use of this play on words being used.
Consequentially here come the problem bears from all over hells half acre if some haven't already been brought in
Seems the trend in today's government policy makers is to hide everything, lie about the rest and disregard the law. Laws are only for revenue generation by the non-government people (us). This methodology worked for them with the introduction of wolves, don't know why we should expect something different with bears.
Post by: wolfbait on March 09, 2015, 10:41:08 AM
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/grizzly.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/grizzly.htm)
Post by: Jingles on March 09, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 09, 2015, 11:30:51 AM
Post by: netcoyote on March 09, 2015, 02:27:46 PM
Has anyone seen a 99.9% sighting of a grizzly bear?
Wow! This could be the start of another thread to rival Bigfoot. :chuckle:
Post by: denali on March 09, 2015, 09:58:42 PM
County may sue to stop grizzly restoration
Okanogan County commissioners say they may sue to stop grizzly bear restoration in the North Cascades. Chelan County commissioners also oppose the idea put forth by federal and state agencies.
OKANOGAN, Wash. — Okanogan County commissioners are exploring the possibility of a lawsuit to prevent the U.S. Department of Interior from restoring grizzly bears to the North Cascades.
“We think we have uncovered enough of where they did not follow procedure and process. They’re no different than their commander in D.C. running rogue with his pencil and phone. Yes, Obama,” said Jim DeTro, Okanogan County commissioner.
The county was talking to state legislators in Olympia about its options after the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held open houses in Winthrop on March 3 and in Okanogan on March 4 to help them determine whether to take an active role in grizzly restoration. It could include moving grizzlies into the North Cascades from other places in the U.S. and Canada.
Commissioners strongly oppose restoration and say a majority of county residents do. Ranchers, back country horsemen, ATV users, hobby farmers and rural residents don’t want another apex predator to worry about, DeTro said.
About 100 people attended the open house in Okanogan, he said.
“It’s a very, very disgruntled public. They’re not happy with the process. It was set up so you really couldn’t comment. It’s divide and conquer. They diffuse the situation as best they can so they can check the box when they go back to wherever they go and say, ‘Yes we had a meeting in Okanogan County,’” DeTro said.
There was no general forum for oral presentations by federal employees or public comment. Instead, multiple stations were set up where people could get information and interact with state and federal agency employees and then put written comments in a box.
“Dal Dagnon (a Tonasket rancher) took a mic and gave them a pretty good talking to,” DeTro said.
“These people shove this stuff at Okanogan County as a poster child and target Okanogan County for everything they can think of and Okanogan County is fed up,” he said.
“What the hell is the NPS doing taking comments on grizzly recovery? These agencies are in bed with or have imbedded greenies and are de facto fundraising for the greenies,” DeTro said, explaining federal efforts draw attention to the issue and helps environmentalists raise money.
The federal effort is an end run to try to accomplish what couldn’t be accomplished through the state in the past, he said.
A March 5 open house in Wenatchee was the same format with no oral presentations or comments. A couple dozen people attended.
This is the scoping phase from which alternative plans will be developed with a final decision on whether to actively pursue restoration made jointly by NPS and USFWS in three years, said Ann Froschauer, USFWS spokeswoman.
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.
“What we would like to do is improve their status, focusing on remote areas of the Pasayten Wilderness and North Cascades National Park,” he said.
The agencies want to keep them in remote areas and bears who endanger people or livestock would be relocated and if they re-offend a second time, destroyed, Servheen said. Problem bears from other areas “absolutely” would not be brought into the North Cascades, he said.
The North Cascades ecosystem is about 10,000 square miles and could safely handle 200 bears, he said. The Yellowstone ecosystem is about the same size and has 1,000 grizzlies that largely stay away from people, he said.
But Doug England, a Chelan County commissioner, said it will be difficult for the same area to be used by grizzlies and hikers.
“We are part of their food chain,” England said. “Hikers and sleeping bags are the soft tacos of the grizzly world.”
Chelan County commissioners sent a letter of opposition to the agencies, he said. It was interesting, he said, to see state Fish and Wildlife personnel at the meeting when state law prevents the state from spending money on grizzly bear recovery.
Any lawsuit likely would boil down to whether the state overrides the federal government in recovery jurisdiction, he said.
Evidence grizzlies lived in Washington is all anecdotal, not historical data, he said.
“This is serious in Stehekin. These are areas we hike with our grandchildren,” he said, adding the concerns of people whose lives and livelihoods will be impacted should carry more weight than those who don’t.
Open houses were set for Cle Elum March 9, Seattle March 10 and Bellingham March 11. Comments will be received through March 26 at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/NCEG. (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/NCEG.)
Post by: mfswallace on March 10, 2015, 06:10:55 AM
Post by: Bob33 on March 10, 2015, 06:21:19 AM
Post by: Jingles on March 10, 2015, 01:30:56 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 10, 2015, 01:52:45 PM
To coincide with the State law about not importing griz from outside WA What would keep the State Legislators from Passing another law placing a bounty on any out of state imported Griz? Of course other than it would take some relatively intelligent legislators with kahonas to tell the feds to FO this is WA.....
And how would these illegal alien grizzlies be identified for culling? By their Canadian accents? Montana drawl?
Post by: boneaddict on March 11, 2015, 03:21:32 PM
Has anyone seen a 99.9% sighting of a grizzly bear?Yes, a couple
Post by: Miles on March 11, 2015, 04:05:48 PM
Has anyone seen a 99.9% sighting of a grizzly bear?
Go hike around Molybdenite mountain in the NE corner of the state...then you can join the 100% group.
Post by: X-Force on March 11, 2015, 04:32:45 PM
They conducted a hair trap survey over 4 years (08-12) around the major north cascade highways and came up with 0 Grizzly, but since 2010 the have been funded to do a more extensive survey.
Post by: wolfbait on March 17, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
Wolfbaits post is in regards to the roads however as an active wilderness trail rider via horseback I can attest to the fact that the trails are probably in the worse shape thy have ever been due to absolutely the most minimal maintenance being done by USFS. Wonder if there is any intended coincidence between the USFS and USFWS. No that would be a conspiracy theory... Oh my hat must of fallen off
The letter below was in 2001, look where we are today.
Letter to Secretary of Agriculture from Retired Forester
By: Chuck Samuelson
April 6, 2001
Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th Street & Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
Secretary Veneman:
SUBJECT: The U.S. Forest Service is dead. The remains have not been buried. A sad commentary to a once proud organization. The agency is a pathetic remnant of what it once was. Politicized to the core and to the Ranger District.
1. The current USFS no longer has the manpower with expertise to manage our National Forests for the practice of forestry or fire fuels reduction and other management. Fire fuels reduction in Montana and the northwest cannot be accomplished with out removing some merchantable timber.
2. The USFS lacks the competent leadership with direction to manage the National Forests according to original laws.
3 The USFS has been directed down the road to convert all the public lands to wilderness. Non-management.
4. The recently enacted forest planning regulations, roadless rules, and transportation planning precludes and stymies active forest management. It virtually closes down the National Forests. Those rules need to be rescinded in entirety.
5. The Endangered Species Act will need to be revised as it is used to supersede original acts, laws, and regulations. It has been used to close down the National Forests and to eliminate private property rights. It is not user friendly.
6. The Forest Service appeals process will have to be amended, and should require a non-refundable bond by appellants.
7. Lawsuits filed by 501 C3 foundation funded environmental organizations should require bonds to be posted. Through court actions such organizations have more power than the U.S. Congress.
8. The USFS does not control the public lands of the National Forests. The Dept. of Interior, USF&WS controls the USFS under the Endangered Species Act, consequently the USFS has lost control of active forest management.
9. At this moment, the USFS is planning to continue to destroy more forest system roads. Billions of dollars of forest system roads have been destroyed and/or abandoned. An absolute detriment to fire and timber management.
10. The few remaining wood processing plants (sawmills) associated with this National Forest will not survive, even with an immediate turnaround of forest management.
The official motto on USFS stationary is "Caring For The Land And Serving People". It can definitely be changed to "Locking Up The Land And Ignoring People" , if drastic action is not taken. This has been the method of operation on our local forest, the Flathead National Forest for the last 10+ years. Our local National Forest lacks leadership and direction that is conducive to good forest stewardship. The main leadership directs specialist to study, prepare environmental analysis and is then followed by no action.
Active management ceased many years ago as timber sales contracts were completed. During that time as sale contracts were finished, the destruction of valuable forest system roads commenced in earnest. Stream culverts were excavated in a manner that would put a private land owner in jail and on the front pages of newspapers. Many roads were physically blocked and abandoned. Now those abandoned roaded areas, under recent rule changes, qualify large previously managed blocks of forested land as "Roadless" or defacto-wilderness. Resources for the communities and the nation are no longer provided.
The community¹s contiguous to the surrounding Flathead National Forest have had their custom and culture vanish. The County¹s have suffered serious loss of the 25% fund for roads and schools only to be made up by the resident taxpayers. The wood products manufacturing facilities have virtually disappeared. Only private timber supplies the remaining wood processing plants which will not survive for long. The private forested timber lands are being professionally managed. Hundreds of workers forced to find new employment and relocate. The vacuum created by the loss of timber resources has been filled by Canadian imports of softwood.
Portions of national forests in eastern Washington State, north Idaho, and northwest Montana have been suffering epidemic stages of insects and disease for years. Meanwhile the U.S. Forest Service is stymied by paralysis, much by design and planning from within of the previous Administration and the foundation funded socialist green environmental organization who have block every proposed action by appeal. If that fails, by filing lawsuits. As a result, there is absolutely no management of the forests. Only regression to wildlands and defacto wilderness designed by foundation funded C-3 organizations and the previous administration.
The lack of rapid response by the Forest Service to the devastating insect infestations has created the untenable conditions of an excessive accumulation and buildup of fire fuels in the forest that has set the stage for the possibility of catastrophic wildfires as experienced in southwest Montana during the fire season of year 2000. This winters snowpacks of less that 50% throughout much of the northwest is setting the stage for a possible repeat of the fire season 2000.
With the passage and implementation of the Fire and Fuels Reduction Funds the Forest Service will be hard pressed to accomplish the desired results. They do not have the manpower or the expertise. Within the last ten years the ranks of the professional foresters and firefighters has been annihilated due to retirements. Replacements working up through the ranks has been nonexistent. Consequently, the organization has been placed in an untenable position. That fact compromises safety of employees and the public. The Fire and Fuels program will take decades to accomplish and will only be accomplished by private industry being offered products (timber) in return for accomplishing the desired work. If usable wood fiber (timber) is not sold to finance the desired fuels management, the task and goals will not be accomplished. The U.S. Treasury will not be able to afford or finance the goals in any other manner. That fact is plain and simple. It has been done before up until about the late 1980¹s.
If the remnants of the wood products industry can hang on without collapsing and going broke, they are willing and able to help accomplish the fuels reduction program. But time is short as the woods workers and sawmill workers are a fast vanishing breed. They cannot wait a year and maybe even six months for Forest Service specialists to complete the NEPA requirements. The work has to begin this coming summer season on an emergency basis if necessary.
From our observations, there have been many positions within the Forest Service filled by personnel who are not qualified. Even if they are qualified, they are hamstrung by excessive regulation that results in undue time delays and waste of funds to attempt to accomplish any objective. There are virtually no professional foresters left within the Forest Service. Ologists of varied professions have filled or replaced forestry positions. Ologists accomplish nothing by research and planning, they are not doers.
Respectfully:
Chuck Samuelson (USFS - retired)
Public Access Director for MFMU
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/public_lands_articles.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/public_lands_articles.htm)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Grizzly and Lynx Join Forces
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/lynx.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/lynx.htm)
Post by: Houndhunter on March 17, 2015, 07:29:58 AM
Has anyone seen a 99.9% sighting of a grizzly bear?Yes, a couple
Pics or it didn't happen :chuckle: