Post by: SWHUNTER on May 12, 2016, 02:04:00 PM
Post by: X-Force on May 12, 2016, 02:14:19 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 12, 2016, 02:24:36 PM
Post by: Special T on May 12, 2016, 02:51:26 PM
Post by: 180-GRAIN on May 12, 2016, 03:34:41 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 12, 2016, 03:39:03 PM
I don't mind sleeping in the backcountry with black bears or wolves but theres just something about a Grizzly that may keep me out of the high country.
That's what they're going for. The wilderness isn't for humans anymore.
Post by: mfswallace on May 12, 2016, 03:48:58 PM
Post by: steeleywhopper on May 12, 2016, 04:00:50 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 12, 2016, 04:11:02 PM
Hopefully someone will remind the state it is not legal to bring in grizzly from outside of Washington
Well, both the state and the feds broke the law with the wolf reintroduction. Why should they stop there?
Post by: heronblu on May 12, 2016, 04:23:39 PM
Post by: thatdamguy on May 12, 2016, 04:57:55 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 12, 2016, 05:06:51 PM
I for one am stoked at the possibility of having grizzlies here. I like feeling like I'm not necessarily top of the food chain. People pay big money to hunt in AK for that "wild" experience. Also we already have lions here.
We already have them. I'm glad you're stoked. So was that guy up in AK who thought he and they understood each other. I think his family got a rib cage back.
If this were just about grizzlies, I'd be OK with it. But it's not. And, it's not about a natural balance, either. For millions of years, man has been part of the natural balance of nature. There are forces at play here which seek to remove man from the natural balance and those forces have the ear of the USFWS and WDFW. If you can't see that, you're not looking.
Post by: Tbar on May 12, 2016, 05:24:18 PM
I for one am stoked at the possibility of having grizzlies here. I like feeling like I'm not necessarily top of the food chain. People pay big money to hunt in AK for that "wild" experience. Also we already have lions here.will you be "stoked" when we lose even more access if this goes through. I would tread lightly when introducing ESA protected species into an area.
Post by: heronblu on May 12, 2016, 06:41:36 PM
I for one am stoked at the possibility of having grizzlies here. I like feeling like I'm not necessarily top of the food chain. People pay big money to hunt in AK for that "wild" experience. Also we already have lions here.
We already have them. I'm glad you're stoked. So was that guy up in AK who thought he and they understood each other. I think his family got a rib cage back.
If this were just about grizzlies, I'd be OK with it. But it's not. And, it's not about a natural balance, either. For millions of years, man has been part of the natural balance of nature. There are forces at play here which seek to remove man from the natural balance and those forces have the ear of the USFWS and WDFW. If you can't see that, you're not looking.
First of all you don't know me, so don't go comparing me to whoever you are referring to who got himself eaten. Secondly I never said anything about a natural balance either. I'm not foolish enough to think that we will ever get back to any semblance of a natural balance if there ever was one. I'm also acutely aware of the politics at play and the interest groups involved, I choose however to not to engage in the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, and instead focus my efforts on recruiting new hunters and getting people stoked on being outside. I don't think it makes me any less of a hunter or a person for that matter simply because I like the idea of another large predator roaming around. Call me naive but I'm excited for the possibility of one day going on a North Cascades brown bear hunt.
Post by: Mudman on May 12, 2016, 07:02:52 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 12, 2016, 08:18:03 PM
How does Grizzly recovery (or wolf recovery) help new hunter recruitment? The same people are pushing both agendas. Have you looked at reproduction rates and the plan you are acutely aware of? I don't think my great grand kids will hunt a grizzly if their plan goes as desired.I for one am stoked at the possibility of having grizzlies here. I like feeling like I'm not necessarily top of the food chain. People pay big money to hunt in AK for that "wild" experience. Also we already have lions here.
We already have them. I'm glad you're stoked. So was that guy up in AK who thought he and they understood each other. I think his family got a rib cage back.
If this were just about grizzlies, I'd be OK with it. But it's not. And, it's not about a natural balance, either. For millions of years, man has been part of the natural balance of nature. There are forces at play here which seek to remove man from the natural balance and those forces have the ear of the USFWS and WDFW. If you can't see that, you're not looking.
First of all you don't know me, so don't go comparing me to whoever you are referring to who got himself eaten. Secondly I never said anything about a natural balance either. I'm not foolish enough to think that we will ever get back to any semblance of a natural balance if there ever was one. I'm also acutely aware of the politics at play and the interest groups involved, I choose however to not to engage in the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, and instead focus my efforts on recruiting new hunters and getting people stoked on being outside. I don't think it makes me any less of a hunter or a person for that matter simply because I like the idea of another large predator roaming around. Call me naive but I'm excited for the possibility of one day going on a North Cascades brown bear hunt.
Post by: konradcountry on May 12, 2016, 08:43:23 PM
I for one am stoked at the possibility of having grizzlies here. I like feeling like I'm not necessarily top of the food chain. People pay big money to hunt in AK for that "wild" experience. Also we already have lions here.
So move to Alaska. The revenue from bear tags is nothing compared to all the costs of having to deal with them. Not to mention it's just another predator that will feed on fawns.
In many parts of Alaska you will find people fishing with loaded shotguns because of the grizzlies. People shouldn't have to take shotguns with them just to fish. Read some of the stories about how hard these things can be to take down.
One of those things is going to maul a hiker and urban environmentalists will tell us that they just need more room. That means closing off GMUs so they can hunt.
This is all part of an unhealthy urban philosophical outlook that tries to pretend that nature once had a perfect state and we need to go back and try to recreate it. The reality is that animals get pushed out of their habitats by competitors and that was happening before man. Just look at what has happened with the spotted owl. Entire communities were decimated and the owl population is still in decline.
What these environmentalists want is to close off as much nature as possible. As with the spotted owl it's not even about the species, it's about putting up fences to keep people out.
Post by: KFhunter on May 12, 2016, 08:49:47 PM
Post by: heronblu on May 12, 2016, 10:53:50 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 05:24:10 AM
I for one am stoked at the possibility of having grizzlies here. I like feeling like I'm not necessarily top of the food chain. People pay big money to hunt in AK for that "wild" experience. Also we already have lions here.
We already have them. I'm glad you're stoked. So was that guy up in AK who thought he and they understood each other. I think his family got a rib cage back.
If this were just about grizzlies, I'd be OK with it. But it's not. And, it's not about a natural balance, either. For millions of years, man has been part of the natural balance of nature. There are forces at play here which seek to remove man from the natural balance and those forces have the ear of the USFWS and WDFW. If you can't see that, you're not looking.
First of all you don't know me, so don't go comparing me to whoever you are referring to who got himself eaten. Secondly I never said anything about a natural balance either. I'm not foolish enough to think that we will ever get back to any semblance of a natural balance if there ever was one. I'm also acutely aware of the politics at play and the interest groups involved, I choose however to not to engage in the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, and instead focus my efforts on recruiting new hunters and getting people stoked on being outside. I don't think it makes me any less of a hunter or a person for that matter simply because I like the idea of another large predator roaming around. Call me naive but I'm excited for the possibility of one day going on a North Cascades brown bear hunt.
Then, with all due respects, you're not paying attention. These programs are being pushed by the same groups which oppose hunting of any kind - HSUS, DOW, etc. It's not a coincidence. It's a structured and well-planned strategy to end hunting. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's happening and has been for some time. That doesn't mean I don't think there can be any predators. It means that predators should be planned and managed in such a way as to continue to allow hunters to be the main tool of wildlife management in controlling populations. That's absolutely NOT what's happening now in WA.
The outrageous wolf plan is far too aggressive for a state of our size and population. In addition, not only is the state holding back information on the real-time reporting of packs and their locations, the plan was structured in such a way as to avoid delisting for as long as possible, or perhaps forever. This isn't Montana or Wyoming or Idaho where a majority of the people see hunting as a necessary and healthy tradition. This is WA where the people deciding the fate of our outdoor traditions and our wildlife live in places where they're hardly exposed to the repercussions of their actions. These are people who don't think humans should be allowed in large tracts of our country, at all.
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2016, 05:44:17 AM
Call me naive but I'm excited for the possibility of one day going on a North Cascades brown bear hunt.I for one am stoked at the possibility of having grizzlies here. I like feeling like I'm not necessarily top of the food chain. People pay big money to hunt in AK for that "wild" experience. Also we already have lions here.
We already have them. I'm glad you're stoked. So was that guy up in AK who thought he and they understood each other. I think his family got a rib cage back.
If this were just about grizzlies, I'd be OK with it. But it's not. And, it's not about a natural balance, either. For millions of years, man has been part of the natural balance of nature. There are forces at play here which seek to remove man from the natural balance and those forces have the ear of the USFWS and WDFW. If you can't see that, you're not looking.
:DOH:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 13, 2016, 05:53:15 AM
Quote from: heronblu
[ Call me naive but I'm excited for the possibility of one day going on a North Cascades brown bear hunt.I will bite and call you naïve, you obviously have no idea what introducing or allowing grizzly bears to run amok will cause. Have you not been following what happened in MT as an example? By the time you will be allowed to hunt a grizzly in WA it will be too late.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 05:58:48 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2016, 06:29:01 AM
Hunting them will never happen in WA regardless of their population or their impact.
:yeah: This is the most likely reality, we are over run with cougar and bear are so thick timber companies have to kill bear to raise trees. The people of WA voted to outlaw baiting bear and using hounds for bear or cougar. I can't believe anyone would be so misguided to think the voters of WA will ever allow sport hunting of grizzly in WA. Maybe a few WDFW employees will get to shoot problem grizzlies, but Joe Hunter will not be notching grizzly tags in WA.
Post by: thatdamguy on May 13, 2016, 06:31:43 AM
Obviously I'm in the minority with my thinking here. I'm not some city boy environmentalist with a dream of perfect natural harmony. I do not think that species exterpation has ever been a good policy however and if you looked at how this country has managed game in the past you'll note that the word "policy" is an apt one. Also on a side note, it's pretty funny reading the words of grown men scared to go outside because of a bear. I know I'm stirring the pot, but I'm just tired of seeing the same bs spouted on here about people's hatred towards predators and the supposed anti conspiracy. Just keep an open mind, read a book written by an actual biologist and close your mouth once in a while. I'm out. ..
For someone who says they are not a city boy environmentalist you sure covered all their arguments. :chuckle: I also do not believe anyone on here hates predators, they just hate the people who manage them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 07:01:22 AM
Post by: Mudman on May 13, 2016, 07:53:39 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 13, 2016, 08:13:59 AM
The casades could support some bears without causing too much trouble, but its going to be costly. I don't know if it's really necessary.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 08:22:45 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 13, 2016, 08:25:58 AM
Post by: Kittman on May 13, 2016, 08:41:39 AM
IMHO it will be a doomed & foolish endeavor from the start.
First there was an idealistic concern for Strix occidentalis, then came Canis lupus fuscus, and now we get Ursus arctos horribilis. I believe there are better uses for spending WDFW money that can be achieved.
Post by: mfswallace on May 15, 2016, 07:14:12 PM
Post by: SWHUNTER on May 15, 2016, 08:12:01 PM
Kirk Pearson was there and he asked what the plan was to bring in bears from somewhere else because of the state law of not transplanting animals from another state. The presenters did not have a good answer for this other than it might be possible for bears from the Selkirks to be moved in.
Conservation Northwest was there and I might be wrong but they seem to be pushing the issue.
One interesting comment from the National parks guy was th at there were no grizzlies left in the bitterroot area. That seemed kind of wierd.
Lots of questions and comments from the crowd. The craziest thing I heard was that if grizzlies were reintroduced they would eat all of our salmon.
It was all good information and I thank the parks, wdfw biologist and the usfs for coming up and taking the time to talk to th e locals about their plans.
There will be a public comment period this fall.
Post by: mfswallace on May 15, 2016, 08:59:25 PM
Post by: timberfaller on May 15, 2016, 09:51:20 PM
All "Public meeting" do is let the public vent and the "Law requirement" was filled by the presenting agency's.
IN Simple terms, We did it and we'll do what we please, no matter what you peasants think or say!
Been to, way to many of them already! :yike: and seen the outcomes!!
Post by: cem3434 on May 15, 2016, 10:20:31 PM
Post by: X-Force on May 15, 2016, 10:21:19 PM
This is the project that has been looking for grizzly in the Cascades.
I wish I could have attended the meeting.
Post by: mfswallace on May 16, 2016, 09:21:36 AM
Post by: JLS on May 16, 2016, 09:46:07 AM
Interesting article, albeit a little dated.
Hair snares are a very effective way of monitoring grizzly populations, and were a major tool in the bear surveys in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE). This study provided population estimates that were far and above what was previously believed.
I'm on the fence on the issue. Even a recovered population there would probably be pretty low, we have ~45 of them in the Selkirks (some in WA) and they rarely ever cause any trouble. We did have some closures, which have been really great for the elk herds.
The casades could support some bears without causing too much trouble, but its going to be costly. I don't know if it's really necessary.
Are you sure you aren't underestimating the quality of the habitat? I'm guessing the plant base in the North Cascades is every bit as productive as that in Glacier National Park. I could be wrong. :dunno:
Is it worth it? :dunno: There are very few animals that will strike more fear and more emotional responses than a wolf. Ursus horriblus is one of few that can do so.
Some of my most memorable experiences in the Bob Marshall have involved grizzly sightings.
Post by: Southpole on May 16, 2016, 09:56:38 AM
Post by: KFhunter on May 16, 2016, 10:04:32 AM
Quote
Like pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness.I don't think it's a tool to keep people out of the wilderness, but it could be a tool to help create more wilderness by limiting the scope of activities in non-wilderness areas.
Quote
Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there.The food source has increased dramatically in recent years with the addition of the wolf, as stated the flora is already there..the wolves have created more scavenging opportunities to keep them around.
Post by: JLS on May 16, 2016, 10:17:40 AM
QuoteObviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there.The food source has increased dramatically in recent years with the addition of the wolf, as stated the flora is already there..the wolves have created more scavenging opportunities to keep them around.
The grizzlies in the NCDE utilize plants as the majority of their diet, relative to the YNP population which relies on scavenging, predation, and fish as a majority of their diet.
Post by: KFhunter on May 16, 2016, 10:24:29 AM
QuoteObviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there.The food source has increased dramatically in recent years with the addition of the wolf, as stated the flora is already there..the wolves have created more scavenging opportunities to keep them around.
The grizzlies in the NCDE utilize plants as the majority of their diet, relative to the YNP population which relies on scavenging, predation, and fish as a majority of their diet.
No arguments there, "increased dramatically" might be too strong of wording but I do think the increased scavenging opportunity created by wolves is the final piece to tip the scales in the viability of this program. Really not much else has changed.
Post by: jstone on May 16, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
Post by: Southpole on May 16, 2016, 10:57:37 AM
and put an end to hunting...QuoteLike pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness.I don't think it's a tool to keep people out of the wilderness, but it could be a tool to help create more wilderness by limiting the scope of activities in non-wilderness areas.
Post by: timberfaller on May 19, 2016, 09:06:10 AM
That is being done though "D's" and the greenie's (bio-diversity groups) going after the use of lead!
But grizzly's will work too!!
And so does "social media" especially when it become propaganda fodder for network news!!
Post by: 4fletch on May 19, 2016, 09:57:39 AM
Post by: Tbar on May 19, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
How are the wolves managed in WA. The Grizz will be managed the same.
:yeah:
And the puppet strings will be controlled by the exact same NGOs that influence and fund the wolf agenda.
Post by: Jonathan_S on May 19, 2016, 10:11:18 AM
How are the wolves managed in WA. The Grizz will be managed the same.
Grizzlies have been here, there is nothing new and Grizzlies aren't about to explode in numbers. I am not worried about the numbers of them but how the land use is altered - like what KFHunter said.
They scare me but it isn't keeping me out of the wilderness. It will just make me increase my sidearm
Post by: luvmystang67 on May 19, 2016, 10:52:06 AM
Grizzlies have been floating in and out of the Cascades for years. Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there. What makes the bios think relocated grizzlies would stick around :rolleyes: Like pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness. They've been working on this project for a long time. I remember seeing pamphlets at Clarks in Marblemount that tells about the designation of the north cascades for wolf and grizzly habitat back in 2004. I think the project started in the 90's sometime. The Suattle river road washed out in a big storm back in 2003. I think the forest service left it in disrepair for longer than needed to keep people out for their little pet recovery projects. If it weren't for the Sauk-Suattle tribes it would still be closed today.
I completely agree with this... what do people think they're going to eat? While I'm not a grizz expert, I dont think they can sustain themselves on berries alone like a black bear. What are they going to do? Eat the 5 high country blacktails? Stay east and prey on the few high country mule deer? I think its much more likely that they dive into the low country and prey on livestock. I really don't see there being a viable natural food source in the north cascades for them. It isn't like they've been hunted recently or that the area has been overdeveloped or anything of the sort... There simply is not enough food for them to hang around for. :twocents:
Also to echo everyone else... I will be dead before they allow hunting for grizzly bears in WA... and by that time I speculate most of hunting will be a thing of the past anyway (unfortunately). This will certainly not be a tool that ever helps hunters in any way.
Post by: huntnphool on May 19, 2016, 11:05:52 AM
Grizzlies have been floating in and out of the Cascades for years. Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there. What makes the bios think relocated grizzlies would stick around :rolleyes: Like pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness. They've been working on this project for a long time. I remember seeing pamphlets at Clarks in Marblemount that tells about the designation of the north cascades for wolf and grizzly habitat back in 2004. I think the project started in the 90's sometime. The Suattle river road washed out in a big storm back in 2003. I think the forest service left it in disrepair for longer than needed to keep people out for their little pet recovery projects. If it weren't for the Sauk-Suattle tribes it would still be closed today.
I completely agree with this... what do people think they're going to eat? While I'm not a grizz expert, I dont think they can sustain themselves on berries alone like a black bear. What are they going to do? Eat the 5 high country blacktails? Stay east and prey on the few high country mule deer? I think its much more likely that they dive into the low country and prey on livestock. I really don't see there being a viable natural food source in the north cascades for them. It isn't like they've been hunted recently or that the area has been overdeveloped or anything of the sort... There simply is not enough food for them to hang around for. :twocents:
Also to echo everyone else... I will be dead before they allow hunting for grizzly bears in WA... and by that time I speculate most of hunting will be a thing of the past anyway (unfortunately). This will certainly not be a tool that ever helps hunters in any way.
How many deer and elk are killed each year by hunters?
Eliminate the hunters and there is plenty of food for the bears and wolves.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 19, 2016, 11:08:43 AM
until there isn't....from eating all the fawns, does, cows or just killing them for fun like the wolves did to that herd in WY.Grizzlies have been floating in and out of the Cascades for years. Obviously, the food source isn't there to keep them there. What makes the bios think relocated grizzlies would stick around :rolleyes: Like pianoman says, it's just another tool to keep people out of the wilderness. They've been working on this project for a long time. I remember seeing pamphlets at Clarks in Marblemount that tells about the designation of the north cascades for wolf and grizzly habitat back in 2004. I think the project started in the 90's sometime. The Suattle river road washed out in a big storm back in 2003. I think the forest service left it in disrepair for longer than needed to keep people out for their little pet recovery projects. If it weren't for the Sauk-Suattle tribes it would still be closed today.
I completely agree with this... what do people think they're going to eat? While I'm not a grizz expert, I dont think they can sustain themselves on berries alone like a black bear. What are they going to do? Eat the 5 high country blacktails? Stay east and prey on the few high country mule deer? I think its much more likely that they dive into the low country and prey on livestock. I really don't see there being a viable natural food source in the north cascades for them. It isn't like they've been hunted recently or that the area has been overdeveloped or anything of the sort... There simply is not enough food for them to hang around for. :twocents:
Also to echo everyone else... I will be dead before they allow hunting for grizzly bears in WA... and by that time I speculate most of hunting will be a thing of the past anyway (unfortunately). This will certainly not be a tool that ever helps hunters in any way.
How many deer and elk are killed each year by hunters?
Eliminate the hunters and there is plenty of food for the bears and wolves.
Post by: JLS on May 19, 2016, 11:12:29 AM
I completely agree with this... what do people think they're going to eat? While I'm not a grizz expert, I dont think they can sustain themselves on berries alone like a black bear.
You might find this of interest. I doubt there is much likelihood of a grizzly starving to death in the North Cascades. There are valid reasons for being concerned and/or opposed to grizzly reintroductions into the North Cascades. Lack of food source is certainly not one of them.
And no, it's unlikely that they will be hunted in my lifetime or yours. It's been 20 years since the last grizzly was legally harvested in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Bear populations are very healthy, yet they are not being hunted there and likely won't for several more years.
Post by: npaull on May 19, 2016, 11:22:20 AM
However, I still agree that the idea of bringing grizzlies in is stupid. Why would we do that? They aren't endangered, and they have corridors through which they can disperse naturally if the habitat is good (via the North Cascades from Canada, or down the Selkirks etc).
Undoubtedly MOST of the grizzlies that used to be around here lived in the lowlands and relied heavily on the annual salmon runs. Those are basically gone, and all the drainages are heavily settled, so the only option left is for strictly alpine bears, which will always have been few and far between given the relative scarcity of reliable food.
So let the grizzlies come down from up north if they can hack it. If they become a problem, kill the problem bears. But transplant bears here? That's a crazy stupid waste of time and money.
Post by: luvmystang67 on May 19, 2016, 11:41:30 AM
I completely agree with this... what do people think they're going to eat? While I'm not a grizz expert, I dont think they can sustain themselves on berries alone like a black bear.
You might find this of interest. I doubt there is much likelihood of a grizzly starving to death in the North Cascades. There are valid reasons for being concerned and/or opposed to grizzly reintroductions into the North Cascades. Lack of food source is certainly not one of them.
And no, it's unlikely that they will be hunted in my lifetime or yours. It's been 20 years since the last grizzly was legally harvested in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Bear populations are very healthy, yet they are not being hunted there and likely won't for several more years.
If the habitat and food are great... why aren't they there in greater numbers now? Why haven't their populations expanded? Why haven't they come down to fill the area? What do you suggest a grizz would eat, away from human populations, in the north cascades? There are very few fish up there... I'm not sure if you've ever gone up there looking for deer, but they are few and far between. The higher deer populations are nearest populated areas.
I'm not afraid that they wont have food because I'm concerned for their survival. I'm concerned that 100 bears dumped in the north cascades would not be able to find food and would find their way down low to get the sustenance they require.
Is your proposition that their diet would be mainly deer? Blacktail? Mule Deer? There aren't many deer up there really...
Post by: JLS on May 19, 2016, 12:09:33 PM
Quote
If the habitat and food are great... why aren't they there in greater numbers now? Why haven't their populations expanded? Why haven't they come down to fill the area?
Grizzly bears are very slow colonizers of new territory. Even in undisturbed habitat with low odds of human/bear conflicts, they don't colonize new areas very rapidly. Factor in human conflicts and subsequent bear mortality or relocation and it can become very difficult for bears to utilize available habitat. As an example, the Gravelly and Snowcrest Ranges in Montana have only established a resident population of grizzlies in the last 8-10 years, despite being only 20-40 air miles from Yellowstone National Park. It's not for lack of habitat.
Quote
What do you suggest a grizz would eat, away from human populations, in the north cascades? There are very few fish up there... I'm not sure if you've ever gone up there looking for deer, but they are few and far between. The higher deer populations are nearest populated areas.
Did you read the attached PDF article? Grizzlies can survive anywhere a black bear can. They can survive based on a diet that is very high in plant based foods. They don't need humans, fish, or deer.
Quote
Is your proposition that their diet would be mainly deer? Blacktail? Mule Deer? There aren't many deer up there really...
There are healthy populations of grizzlies in the Badger-Two Medicine area, despite low densities of deer, elk, and moose.
Post by: luvmystang67 on May 19, 2016, 12:24:00 PM
My problem is also a similar issue that I have with the NE woodland caribou... There are plenty of woodland caribou in the world. The fact that we're near the very extreme end of their historical range makes me a little less likely to support their continued success in those areas. Imagine hunting the Seattle area 300 years ago... I'm sure it was excellent. Things change, climate changes, populations change... I'm very okay with no bears choosing to inhabit an area that they could freely choose to travel to. Adding bears to ensure they're around in an area where we feel like they should be seems very foolish.
I still think you'd see more in populated areas than in mountainous areas due to the increased availability of food.
Post by: JLS on May 19, 2016, 12:43:16 PM
I can buy that that could... but I do find it strange in the nearly 50 years that its been illegal to hunt them that they haven't recolonized this fruitful area... if it indeed a habitat they prefer.
I can name you a number of mountain ranges that SHOULD be easy for grizzly bears to recolonize, yet they don't. And these are areas with a very healthy core population nearby. Maybe something is unique or has changed that is preventing bears from colonizing this area. I doubt it, but not everything is as simple as it may seem on the surface.
Quote
Things change, climate changes, populations change... I'm very okay with no bears choosing to inhabit an area that they could freely choose to travel to. Adding bears to ensure they're around in an area where we feel like they should be seems very foolish.
I agree with you here.
Quote
I still think you'd see more in populated areas than in mountainous areas due to the increased availability of food.
Possibly. However, it's only been in the last 15 years or so that grizzlies have begun frequenting the prairies off of the Eastern Front of the Rocky Mountains. Even still, this is more an exception than the rule. I can easily see some areas where grizzlies could/would prefer to hit foothill regions late in the summer when fruit is readily available. I doubt they would reside exclusively in those areas for a variety of reasons.
Post by: IBspoiled on May 28, 2016, 12:33:54 PM
Post by: heronblu on May 28, 2016, 06:25:16 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#2010s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#2010s)
http://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/trail-news/ask-a-bear-how-many-bear-attacks-really-2/ (http://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/trail-news/ask-a-bear-how-many-bear-attacks-really-2/)
Post by: luvmystang67 on May 31, 2016, 08:19:36 AM
"If it only saves one life it will have been worth it." - When it comes to gun control
Serious question. If they reintroduce grizzlys... do you think that more or less than 1 person will die in the next 50 years from Grizz if they take hold?
If just one person dies... will the griz reintroduction have been worth it?
How many pet and livestock deaths create the breakeven point of being worth it?
I would just like the same logic applied by the same people.
Post by: heronblu on May 31, 2016, 09:21:37 PM
We hear a lot along the lines of:
"If it only saves one life it will have been worth it." - When it comes to gun control
Serious question. If they reintroduce grizzlys... do you think that more or less than 1 person will die in the next 50 years from Grizz if they take hold?
If just one person dies... will the griz reintroduction have been worth it?
How many pet and livestock deaths create the breakeven point of being worth it?
I would just like the same logic applied by the same people.
That argument isn't doing anyone any favors. If I were to play devils advocate I would cite the overwhelming evidence that guns are far more dangerous in the hands of the wrong person then the odd grizzly or two roaming around in the woods. I'm not saying that I am an advocate for gun control, simply that this isn't really a comparable scenario. If people are really concerned about the risk of death or injury by a previously extirpated and now reintroduced species why are there not more angry posts about Western WA Elk? If we are to be smart advocates for hunting, or gun rights, public land use rights etc we need to forego the scripted buzzwords, the blind broad statements, and the sweeping generalizations and make some truly informed arguments.