Post by: denali on May 06, 2015, 01:16:18 AM
Federal officials say they will decide in late 2017 whether and how to reintroduce grizzly bears to Washington’s Northern Cascades.
The 2017 target came up during a briefing on grizzly bear restoration Tuesday for the Washington Senate Natural Resources Committee, which heard from two federal officials on their agencies’ bear studies.
In the 19th century, the state’s Northern Cascades were filled with grizzlies, but the last confirmed Washington Cascades sighting of a grizzly north of Interstate Highway 90 was in 1996. Much of that territory has not been scouted for grizzlies.
Karen Taylor-Goodrich, superintendent of the North Cascades National Park Complex, and Eric Rickerson, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s state supervisor, spoke to the Senate committee about the possible reintroduction of the grizzlies to the Northern Cascades, where the land is 97 percent publicly owned. The National Park Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are the lead agencies on grizzlies planning.
They expect to have a draft environmental impact study publicly available by mid-2016 with multiple options on how to restore the grizzlies. Federal officials have so far declined to say what those choices might be.
The public will provide feedback on that draft report in late 2016, with the final environmental impact study scheduled for release in mid-2017. The feds are expected to decide on a course of action in the fall of 2017.
The federal government declared grizzlies to be a threatened species in 1975, and Washington declared them as a state endangered species in 1980.
There are two traditional grizzly bear territories in Washington. One is 9,800 square miles of the Northern Cascades, south of an adjacent 3,800 square miles of British Columbia Cascades. While British Columbia has a sizable grizzly population, only a handful lives in the southern Canadian Cascades. The state’s other grizzly turf is a speck of northeastern Washington that forms the Selkirk-Cabinet-Yaak territory with northernmost Idaho and northwestern Montana. The Selkirk-Cabinet-Yaak territory has only a handful of grizzlies.
Black bears are plentiful in both territories, with about 1,500 in Washington’s Northern Cascades. Grizzlies are bigger and roam farther than black bears.
Get More Articles Like This
Restoring a grizzly population would be slow — conceivably taking 100 years to tally 300 grizzlies. A mother bear gives birth once every three to five years to one or two cubs, taking care of her offspring for 2.5 to 4.5 years. About half of the cubs die in the first year of life.
A complicating factor is that Washington’s laws forbid the importation of outside grizzly bears into the state. Taylor-Goodrich said the federal environmental study will have to address that issue.
In earlier public comments on grizzly planning, concerns have been voiced about safety risks to people Elizabeth Ruther, representing Defenders of Wildlife, told the committee, “Living safely with grizzlies requires the same common sense efforts as with black bears.”
Post by: jasnt on May 06, 2015, 03:27:53 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 06, 2015, 08:20:58 AM
"A complicating factor is that Washington’s laws forbid the importation of outside grizzly bears into the state. Taylor-Goodrich said the federal environmental study will have to address that issue."
Just like the wolf plan, the environmentalists, USFWS etc. already have a plan, I wonder how many grizzlies they have planted so far?
Post by: Curly on May 06, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 06, 2015, 08:49:50 AM
Don't they have anything better to waste time and money on?But what kinds of non-controversial, low-profile, non-radical projects get you name recognition and face time with other bureaucrats eventually leading to faster promotions and cushy private sector jobs after civil service?
Post by: Smoke on May 06, 2015, 10:59:24 AM
Post by: denali on May 06, 2015, 12:35:03 PM
Capital press.
Washington law forbids importing and releasing grizzly bears, but the federal agencies are considering it.
OLYMPIA — A national park superintendent Tuesday faced pointed questioning from a state senator about whether the federal government will pay any attention to Washington’s ban on turning loose grizzly bears.
The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are studying how to re-establish grizzlies in the “North Cascades ecosystem,” a 9,800-square mile area that covers 14 percent of the state. About 90 percent of the land is controlled by the federal government.
Federal agencies have talked for years about releasing grizzlies to kickstart an almost imperceptible population. In response to a federal proposal to import fewer than 10 bears two decades ago, the Legislature in 1995 — by a 44-5 vote in the Senate and 96-0 in the House — passed a law stating, “Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state.”
At the time, testimony on the bill focused on the impact grizzlies would have on public safety and the cattle industry in north-central Washington.
The 20-year-old law came up during a presentation by North Cascades National Park Superintendent Karen Taylor-Goodrich to the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee.
“You’re looking at bring bears into our state?” asked the committee’s chairman, Monroe Republican Kirk Pearson, whose district includes a portion of the North Cascades.
Goodrich said federal agencies are looking at a “full range of alternatives,” including releasing grizzlies.
“Do you see yourself usurping our state laws in doing this?” Pearson said.
Taylor-Goodrich answered: “Not at this time, no.”
The federal agencies are scheduled to decide in the fall of 2017 how to go about establishing grizzlies.
Pearson said after the meeting that it’s unclear how much influence legislators, residents and state wildlife managers will have.
“That’s what’s most important,” he said. “I kind of agree with upholding the (state law).”
Taylor-Goodrich that even if a “small number” of grizzlies were released, the North Cascades would not have a sustainable population for 50 to 125 years. Bear sightings would be rare for the first 10 to 20 years, she said.
The 1995 law also instructs the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to encourage native grizzly populations to grow. “The way I read it, we’re not against grizzly bears,” Pearson said.
Conservation Northwest carnivore policy lead Paula Swedeen said the federal study comes “just in time” because grizzly bears are nearly gone from Washington. She said it’s unlikely the bears already here can develop into a sustainable population.
“We have watched as we’ve tried to have natural colonization be the primary focus for recovery, and we’re concerned that in and of itself, it’s is not going to be enough,” she said.
Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, asked federal officials how much has been spent so far looking at establishing bears in Washington and what agencies want to accomplish. “What’s the ultimate goal here?” he asked.
Federal officials said they didn’t know how much has been spent. The goal is to increase biodiversity and remove grizzly bears from the federal endangered species list, they said.
Defenders of Wildlife Northwest representative Elizabeth Ruther said grizzly bears would draw tourists to Washington.
Post by: jasnt on May 06, 2015, 07:50:50 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 07, 2015, 04:45:33 AM
You've got to be kidding me! Who do they think is dumb enough to believe that?
They need to drop this stupid idea and not spend one more penny on even thinking about restoring grizzly bear populations in this state. They're on the endangered list? So what? It's not like there's not plenty of them in Canada and Alaska. Why do we need them here? The whole idea of restoring grizzlies is just amazingly stupid! If they were meant to be here, they'd get here on their own, without any help from us. :bash:
Post by: Curly on May 07, 2015, 07:59:00 AM
"Grizzly bears would draw tourists to Washington"
You've got to be kidding me! Who do they think is dumb enough to believe that?
They need to drop this stupid idea and not spend one more penny on even thinking about restoring grizzly bear populations in this state. They're on the endangered list? So what? It's not like there's not plenty of them in Canada and Alaska. Why do we need them here? The whole idea of restoring grizzlies is just amazingly stupid! If they were meant to be here, they'd get here on their own, without any help from us. :bash:
:yeah:
Post by: wolfbait on May 11, 2015, 05:43:26 AM
"Grizzly bears would draw tourists to Washington"
You've got to be kidding me! Who do they think is dumb enough to believe that?
They need to drop this stupid idea and not spend one more penny on even thinking about restoring grizzly bear populations in this state. They're on the endangered list? So what? It's not like there's not plenty of them in Canada and Alaska. Why do we need them here? The whole idea of restoring grizzlies is just amazingly stupid! If they were meant to be here, they'd get here on their own, without any help from us. :bash:
That lie worked for the wolf introduction, why wouldn't it work for the grizzly bear introduction?
The 1994 EIS predicted that presence of wolves would result in a 5-10 percent increase in annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park. On this basis, the EIS forecast wolves in the region would generate $20 million in revenue to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WG&F reports that annual park visitation remained essentially unchanged after wolf introduction, and has decreased 2.6 percent since the wolf population reached recovery goals in 2000.
“ Since park visitation did not increase as originally forecast, the Service cannot legitimately conclude presence of wolves has had any appreciable effect on net tourism revenues,” WG&F stated.
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm
Post by: 4fletch on May 12, 2015, 12:35:57 AM
Don't they have anything better to waste time and money on?. Dept. of wildlife has already wasted time and money on wolves now it's Griz time
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2015, 06:07:59 AM
Don't they have anything better to waste time and money on?. Dept. of wildlife has already wasted time and money on wolves now it's Griz time
I agree, the wolf story in WA is over, they have accomplished what was intended, to fill the state with wolves. The new story and push will be the grizzly bear introduction, with the same BS meetings just for show.
Post by: jasnt on May 13, 2015, 10:12:05 AM
:yeah:Don't they have anything better to waste time and money on?. Dept. of wildlife has already wasted time and money on wolves now it's Griz time
I agree, the wolf story in WA is over, they have accomplished what was intended, to fill the state with wolves. The new story and push will be the grizzly bear introduction, with the same BS meetings just for show.
Post by: huntrights on May 13, 2015, 11:01:41 AM
"Of Wolves, Bears, and Birds"
http://www.eastmans.com/blog/of-wolves-bears-and-birds
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2015, 11:28:29 AM
This isn't true, is it?
Post by: ShadowHunter on May 14, 2015, 06:44:08 AM
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/ (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/)
Post by: Special T on May 14, 2015, 03:28:11 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 14, 2015, 03:30:54 PM
Post by: jasnt on May 14, 2015, 06:19:18 PM
If they did an eco tourist-grizzly cage match, people would come for that. As a matter of fact, if they had those, I wouldn't oppose grizzly reintroduction. :tup::chuckle: