Post by: jackelope on June 15, 2015, 08:13:58 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 15, 2015, 08:58:06 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 15, 2015, 09:21:21 AM
Post by: Special T on June 15, 2015, 12:30:26 PM
Researchers had set up cameras at a bait station, hoping to get images of wolverines, the ferocious carnivorous scavengers that also are making a comeback in the Cascades.
What they got was photo of a grizzly bear, which doesn’t require ID to go back and forth across international boundaries."
Just because they arent confirmed does not mean they are not here. A memeber here and a Silver aroow Club member saw a Grizz and told 2 USFS rangers that he saw one up in the Pasayten Wilderness when coming back from a high hunt. they scoffed at him so he informed the rangers that it had an ear tag and was scaping a large tree and exactly where it was seen they became much more interested in what he had to say. that was at least 10 years ago if memory serves right.
Perhaps people with emotions like these
“Please ensure that there are wild grizzlies for my grandchildren to imagine roaming the mountains; even if it is unlikely they will ever see a wild one, it is important to know that they are there, living free, in our backyard of the North Cascades.”
Should find comfort that they ARE here and that since seeing them is not important Eye witness accounts should be enough.
Lets not for get the accouts talked about on here OR the fact that a young one was mistakenly shot out of the NE by some guys hunting black bear that was BIG news a few years back... That however must have slipped this investigative reporters minds.... despite the fact that It WAS covered in Seattle news possibly even the ST....
Perhaps those who are enamored with wolves and Griz should spend more time deep in the woods looking for them instead of dreaming about them in the Concrete jungle. :twocents:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 15, 2015, 12:39:05 PM
Lets not for get the accouts talked about on here OR the fact that a young one was mistakenly shot out of the NE by some guys hunting black bear that was BIG news a few years back... That however must have slipped this investigative reporters minds.... despite the fact that It WAS covered in Seattle news possibly even the ST....
That was in Montana or Idaho
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 15, 2015, 12:42:12 PM
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
Post by: X-Force on June 15, 2015, 12:42:51 PM
Lets not for get the accouts talked about on here OR the fact that a young one was mistakenly shot out of the NE by some guys hunting black bear that was BIG news a few years back... That however must have slipped this investigative reporters minds.... despite the fact that It WAS covered in Seattle news possibly even the ST....
That was in Montana or Idaho
Washington
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 15, 2015, 12:43:49 PM
the artice states they hyprocracy. "The most recent confirmed grizzly sighting anywhere close to this state took place in May 2012, about 20 miles north of the Canadian border.
Typical reporter error - that is true for the north Cascades, but not the state. Multiple confirmed grizzlies every year in the WA Selkirks
Post by: grundy53 on June 15, 2015, 12:44:08 PM
The article posted and linked above is interesting in that they are now discounting the 2010 sighting at Cascade Pass which was confirmed by multiple agencies and highly touted in the mediaIt was Washington.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 15, 2015, 12:45:06 PM
The article posted and linked above is interesting in that they are now discounting the 2010 sighting at Cascade Pass which was confirmed by multiple agencies and highly touted in the mediaIt was Washington.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
Source?
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/10000-offered-to-find-killer-of-idaho-grizzly-bear-cub/
Post by: grundy53 on June 15, 2015, 12:46:33 PM
http://bearinfo.blogspot.com/2009/08/2-accused-of-illegally-killing-wa.html?m=1The article posted and linked above is interesting in that they are now discounting the 2010 sighting at Cascade Pass which was confirmed by multiple agencies and highly touted in the mediaIt was Washington.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
Source?
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/10000-offered-to-find-killer-of-idaho-grizzly-bear-cub/
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 15, 2015, 12:47:46 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 15, 2015, 12:50:40 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 15, 2015, 01:01:03 PM
The article posted and linked above is interesting in that they are now discounting the 2010 sighting at Cascade Pass which was confirmed by multiple agencies and highly touted in the mediaReminds me of exactly what they did in the GYE with all wolf evidence prior to introducing Canadian wolves in the mid-1990s: it was discredited or ignored. It is pretty clear the intent there was to discredit naturally recolonizing and resident wolves, which would have had full ESA protection and would have required full ESA protection due to similarity of appearance for the translocations. In similar fashion, an augmentation will require full ESA protection for any translocated grizzlies. A reintroduction, however, allows for a less restrictive "experimental nonessential" population designation, which has more flexibility for dealing with conflicts - albeit still stringent restrictions.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
The Service and their allies pulled off that "little white lie" for "the greater good" of establishing a robust, genetically diverse northern Rockies wolf population. It did, however, require them to act outside the law. I expect the EXACT same result for North Cascades grizzly reintroductions - "there may be transient or relict individuals, but no self-sustaining population".
Post by: Special T on June 15, 2015, 01:03:01 PM
wolf reintroduction repeat
Post by: denali on June 15, 2015, 06:29:20 PM
Capitol Press
Federal agencies received thousands of comments when they asked what public about reintroducing grizzly bears in the North Cascades.
The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received more than 3,400 comments this spring on whether to reintroduce grizzly bears into the North Cascades.
The comments reflect the breadth of thoughts on re-establishing grizzlies over 9,800-square miles, some 14 percent of the state.
A newly released 145-page summary of the correspondence didn’t tally the number of pro vs. con statements. But supporters and opponents of releasing grizzles were numerous and adamant.
Livestock producers warned that grizzly bears would pose another new risk to ranchers, who already are dealing with the return of wolves.
Environmental groups argued that grizzlies would create a healthier ecosystem and draw tourists.
Officials collected the comments over six weeks this spring. The agencies say the comments will help shape their study on the environmental impacts of releasing grizzlies. Federal land managers expect to make a decision in the fall of 2017.
The Washington Cattlemen’s Association cautioned against reintroducing grizzlies as the state tries to return wolves to the North Cascades. According to Executive Vice President Jack Field, the group “is concerned about the constrains placed on the existing habitat and prey base for both of these apex predators and believes there are still too many unknown factors to move forward with the grizzly bear translocation efforts in the same geographic area.”
The Okanogan County Cattlemen’s Association said ranchers face trouble on several fronts. “At present we have wolves approaching from the east and north, elk invading our crop and grazing lands and now the potential for grizzly bears to our west.”
The Washington Farm Bureau questioned whether grizzly bears would impair grazing leases on federal and state lands and predicted that grizzlies would keep hikers and equestrians from the North Cascades National Park and wilderness areas.
Defenders of Wildlife argued grizzlies will draw visitors from around the world.
The Seattle-based North Cascades Conservation Council commented that restoring bears should come with limits on recreation, particularly in alpine meadows. “A moratorium on any further human activity in those areas, especially any motorized activity, should be put in place immediately,” according to the council’s comments.
The group also argued that fires at low elevations be allowed to burn. “These fires should not be suppressed … as the clearings they create offer another critical food source for the bears.”
Some said they wanted to restore grizzly bears for future generations. “Please ensure that there are wild grizzlies for my grandchildren to imagine roaming the mountains, even if it is unlikely they will ever see a wild one, it is important to know that they are there, living free, in our backyard of the North Cascades,” wrote a commenter.
WildEarth Guardians noted that grizzlies need “large expanses of intact, variable habitat” and their status as a protected species would safeguard other wildlife. “Grizzly bear conservation and recovery has the potential to insulate other species from the need for legal protections.”
Thirteen state lawmakers signed a letter reminding federal officials that Washington law forbids grizzlies from being introduced into the state.
The federal government controls about 90 percent of the land designated for the return of grizzles.
The legislators called reintroducing grizzlies the “wrong choice” in a state struggling to adapt to wolves.
“The state needs support from the federal government as it deals with these challenges, not added complications from an introduced predator population,” the legislators wrote.
Post by: timberfaller on June 15, 2015, 09:25:27 PM
The Seattle-based North Cascades Conservation Council commented that restoring bears should come with limits on recreation, particularly in alpine meadows. “A moratorium on any further human activity in those areas, especially any motorized activity, should be put in place immediately,” according to the council’s comments."
ONE word, CONTROL!!! will always be the rule!!!!
My guess is D of W don't understand what NCCC is wanting!! :o
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 15, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 16, 2015, 06:26:30 AM
"Defenders of Wildlife argued grizzlies will draw visitors from around the world.
The Seattle-based North Cascades Conservation Council commented that restoring bears should come with limits on recreation, particularly in alpine meadows. “A moratorium on any further human activity in those areas, especially any motorized activity, should be put in place immediately,” according to the council’s comments."
ONE word, CONTROL!!! will always be the rule!!!!
My guess is D of W don't understand what NCCC is wanting!! :o
I'm quite sure now that DoW is on the WAG, they'll be part of the GAG, as well. The residents of the North Cascades area will be sold down the river just as have the residents of the NE.
Post by: TheHunt on June 16, 2015, 07:01:11 AM
Looking forward to seeing all the weapons strapped to the backpacks while hunting.
Post by: Jonathan_S on June 16, 2015, 07:12:36 AM
Don't read the comments. Just don't. It amazes me that people so stupid would actually be able to read a newspaper.
I had to >:(
Makes us on Hunt-Wa look like a bunch of academics.
Post by: jasnt on June 27, 2015, 03:17:19 PM
:yeah:The article posted and linked above is interesting in that they are now discounting the 2010 sighting at Cascade Pass which was confirmed by multiple agencies and highly touted in the mediaReminds me of exactly what they did in the GYE with all wolf evidence prior to introducing Canadian wolves in the mid-1990s: it was discredited or ignored. It is pretty clear the intent there was to discredit naturally recolonizing and resident wolves, which would have had full ESA protection and would have required full ESA protection due to similarity of appearance for the translocations. In similar fashion, an augmentation will require full ESA protection for any translocated grizzlies. A reintroduction, however, allows for a less restrictive "experimental nonessential" population designation, which has more flexibility for dealing with conflicts - albeit still stringent restrictions.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
The Service and their allies pulled off that "little white lie" for "the greater good" of establishing a robust, genetically diverse northern Rockies wolf population. It did, however, require them to act outside the law. I expect the EXACT same result for North Cascades grizzly reintroductions - "there may be transient or relict individuals, but no self-sustaining population".
Post by: csaaphill on June 30, 2015, 09:32:06 PM
Don't read the comments. Just don't. It amazes me that people so stupid would actually be able to read a newspaper.:chuckle: :chuckle:
liked the hope they eat liberals first.
Post by: T Pearce on July 03, 2015, 08:30:06 PM
Like Jelly Stone? Good grief......... the op did state: Don't read the comments.
T