Post by: netcoyote on January 12, 2017, 10:46:51 AM
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/feds-announce-north-cascades-grizzly-bear-restoration-alternatives/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/feds-announce-north-cascades-grizzly-bear-restoration-alternatives/)
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 12, 2017, 10:54:52 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 12, 2017, 11:01:29 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 12, 2017, 11:02:30 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2017, 11:07:50 AM
uhhh....yeah....
Post by: netcoyote on January 12, 2017, 11:20:03 AM
The public open houses will be held from 6-8 p.m. at the following locations:
Cle Elum – February 13 at the Putnam Centennial Center
Cashmere – February 14 at the Riverside Center
Winthrop – February 15 at the Red Barn
Omak – February 16 at the Annex Facility at Okanogan County Fairgrounds
Bellingham – February 21 at the Bellingham Technical College
Darrington – February 22 at the Darrington Community Center
Sultan – February 23 at the Sultan High School
Renton – February 24 at the Renton Community Center
Post by: wheels on January 12, 2017, 11:30:45 AM
Post by: runamuk on January 12, 2017, 11:33:19 AM
Post by: grundy53 on January 12, 2017, 11:48:11 AM
My comment, HELL NO!!!!Same here
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: dreamunelk on January 12, 2017, 12:08:05 PM
Post by: netcoyote on January 12, 2017, 01:17:20 PM
I'm guessing that with the new sheriff in town, whoever he puts in charge of this, will have the wisdom to stop this before money gets distributed. But that WON'T happen unless enough of us speak up. I plan to attend at least one or more of the meetings. Anybody else?
Post by: Bob33 on January 12, 2017, 01:55:18 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2017, 02:28:47 PM
There is a series of public meetings coming up for this. I would want to hear the case for why NPS and FWS think this is a good idea. The burden on them should be to make the case FOR it rather than just force the rest of us to voice objection. Of course there will be many showing up, especially on the west side, who would think this is a grand idea.
The public open houses will be held from 6-8 p.m. at the following locations:
Cle Elum – February 13 at the Putnam Centennial Center
Cashmere – February 14 at the Riverside Center
Winthrop – February 15 at the Red Barn
Omak – February 16 at the Annex Facility at Okanogan County Fairgrounds
Bellingham – February 21 at the Bellingham Technical College
Darrington – February 22 at the Darrington Community Center
Sultan – February 23 at the Sultan High School
Renton – February 24 at the Renton Community Center
This is so they can say they held public meetings, then they do what they want anyway.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 12, 2017, 02:37:41 PM
Let nature decide how many will be there. The last thing we need is the feds managing recovery.
We as hunters are part of nature to. The dominant predator we are.............
Post by: trophyhunt on January 12, 2017, 02:41:20 PM
exactly!!!! I've been to a couple meetings in the past, you certainly feel like they've already decided on whatever your there to talk about. FrustratingThere is a series of public meetings coming up for this. I would want to hear the case for why NPS and FWS think this is a good idea. The burden on them should be to make the case FOR it rather than just force the rest of us to voice objection. Of course there will be many showing up, especially on the west side, who would think this is a grand idea.
The public open houses will be held from 6-8 p.m. at the following locations:
Cle Elum – February 13 at the Putnam Centennial Center
Cashmere – February 14 at the Riverside Center
Winthrop – February 15 at the Red Barn
Omak – February 16 at the Annex Facility at Okanogan County Fairgrounds
Bellingham – February 21 at the Bellingham Technical College
Darrington – February 22 at the Darrington Community Center
Sultan – February 23 at the Sultan High School
Renton – February 24 at the Renton Community Center
This is so they can say they held public meetings, then they do what they want anyway.
Post by: Duckhunter14 on January 12, 2017, 06:13:07 PM
Also; I just downloaded the EIS and its 325 pages! How many people are really going to read it from front to back?
My final thought is this; I have hunted all over Montana and my hunting partners and I have ventured into several areas that were known to have grizzly. We only saw one from a distance and one sow with a cub at very close range. Under 80 yards. It really changed my hunting partner and I's attitude towards hunting in country that holds griz. It will always be in the back of your mind. All precautions aside. We decided not to set up our tent in the area that night and drove to the nearest hotel. About 45 miles away.... :chuckle:
Post by: vandeman17 on January 12, 2017, 06:18:21 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 12, 2017, 06:22:59 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 13, 2017, 07:22:29 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on January 13, 2017, 07:55:40 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 13, 2017, 07:55:49 AM
They will do it anyway. It's all about the fed $$$ and land. This will close more roads and land to access. After a while no one will care about the land cause no one will be able to use it anyway and it will get sold. We already know they care about our opinions on this. The meetings are just for show, just like wolves we have no choices:yeah:
For anybody that does not no this already,they have had grizzly recovery zones for a long time here in northeast wa,which is all the same areas as lynx recovery zones,that's good , but the bad is that they use theses zones for a reason to do no management to the land,then when fires come through its a timber box waiting to burn.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on January 13, 2017, 07:56:24 AM
I keep going back and forth - I don't particularly like the idea of sleeping out in the woods with grizzlys, but I keep saying "well BC and Alaska have tons of them so will it really be that big of an issue?"
Obviously I'm of the lesser informed variety.
Post by: jasnt on January 13, 2017, 08:24:34 AM
the selkirks is a great example of this. No spring bear tags in grizz recovery zones. Tons of decomishoned roads that fire fighters can't use anymore do to fallen trees and washouts. The tower fire could have been stopped much faster with some of those roads. This year they decomishoned a huge amount of road systems in 121. I don't mean gated either. Completely destroyed about 1/4 of road that accessed many more roads. Looks like a land slide and now no way for fire trucks to get in.They will do it anyway. It's all about the fed $$$ and land. This will close more roads and land to access. After a while no one will care about the land cause no one will be able to use it anyway and it will get sold. We already know they care about our opinions on this. The meetings are just for show, just like wolves we have no choices:yeah:
For anybody that does not no this already,they have had grizzly recovery zones for a long time here in northeast wa,which is all the same areas as lynx recovery zones,that's good , but the bad is that they use theses zones for a reason to do no management to the land,then when fires come through its a timber box waiting to burn.
Post by: northwesthunter84 on January 13, 2017, 08:36:45 AM
Post by: jmscon on January 13, 2017, 08:40:35 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,205843.msg2738460.html#msg2738460
Post by: Seahawk12 on January 13, 2017, 08:45:26 AM
This is a bad idea and if it goes through then people are going to be killed by the bears.
OP should have a poll on here. How many outdoors men/women are in favor of introducing an apex predator into the woods.
Watching the bear scene from "the revenant" is mandatory before you vote.
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2017, 08:52:59 AM
:tdown:
Why Do We Need Grizzly Bears?
Grizzly bears are culturally and spiritually significant to First Nations throughout the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. Grizzlies are seen as teachers, guides and symbols of strength and wisdom to indigenous peoples. They are a regional icon and a key part of our natural heritage.
Post by: cem3434 on January 13, 2017, 08:57:19 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 13, 2017, 09:36:50 AM
Post by: netcoyote on January 13, 2017, 09:57:51 AM
I honestly don't believe it will make a difference, but I commented on their site. Unfortunately like has already been stated on here, they've probably already made up their minds, too many anti hunters work in the wildlife field! This idea is almost as bad as introducing a wolf breed that wasn't here to begin with. Post your comments either way, bitching on this thread alone will do absolutely nothing.
Only giving up will do nothing. If the other side is more passionate and vocal about their choice, then they probably deserve to get their way. The point of bringing this up was to get more people informed about it, talking about it and voicing their opinion in a more useful way than just b*tching about it. We all have to take it to the next level to make our voices heard.
Remember, we will have different people in charge at the Federal level during, at least, the next four years. What may have been considered futile during the last eight years may fall on more sympathetic ears for the next few years.
Post by: Wacenturion on January 13, 2017, 10:34:41 AM
There is a series of public meetings coming up for this. I would want to hear the case for why NPS and FWS think this is a good idea. The burden on them should be to make the case FOR it rather than just force the rest of us to voice objection. Of course there will be many showing up, especially on the west side, who would think this is a grand idea.
The public open houses will be held from 6-8 p.m. at the following locations:
Cle Elum – February 13 at the Putnam Centennial Center
Cashmere – February 14 at the Riverside Center
Winthrop – February 15 at the Red Barn
Omak – February 16 at the Annex Facility at Okanogan County Fairgrounds
Bellingham – February 21 at the Bellingham Technical College
Darrington – February 22 at the Darrington Community Center
Sultan – February 23 at the Sultan High School
Renton – February 24 at the Renton Community Center
This is so they can say they held public meetings, then they do what they want anyway.
Exactly....the way it pretty much has always been for the most part. Stupid idea if you ask me.
Post by: fireweed on January 13, 2017, 10:36:38 AM
--They ARE dead set on transplanting grizzlies.
--The EIS looks mostly at the impacts of the act of moving grizzlies from point A to Point B (helicopter noise, danger to employees, chance that bear won't survive move, short term closure of trail used for transporting) NOT long term impacts of an established population.
--They claim recreation impacts will be temporary and short term (because they are only looking at the actual act of translocation more bears)
--Closure of areas AFTER bears are established is left for another day, another agency, and another plan, so they can claim there will be no long-term closures under this "bear establishment" plan.
--the chance of a bear attack is very low, because the numbers they are bringing is low and they compare it to other areas with super low populations of bears NOT the areas with many bears that may eventually show up. Data on attacks in greater Yellowstone, for example, is not used for comparison--only attacks in the Selkirks.
In conclusion ::The EIS only looks at the impacts of a handful of bears they are bringing in (5-1o per year or so) not the impact of a strong, established population pushing 300 bears that may result.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 13, 2017, 10:40:25 AM
I agree!I honestly don't believe it will make a difference, but I commented on their site. Unfortunately like has already been stated on here, they've probably already made up their minds, too many anti hunters work in the wildlife field! This idea is almost as bad as introducing a wolf breed that wasn't here to begin with. Post your comments either way, bitching on this thread alone will do absolutely nothing.
Only giving up will do nothing. If the other side is more passionate and vocal about their choice, then they probably deserve to get their way. The point of bringing this up was to get more people informed about it, talking about it and voicing their opinion in a more useful way than just b*tching about it. We all have to take it to the next level to make our voices heard.
Remember, we will have different people in charge at the Federal level during, at least, the next four years. What may have been considered futile during the last eight years may fall on more sympathetic ears for the next few years.
Post by: huntnphool on January 13, 2017, 11:44:16 AM
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=44144&documentID=77025
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 13, 2017, 07:03:27 PM
That's not accurate. They are still logging and using the grizzly recovery area, and putting out fires. I elk hunt in the recovery area and they have been logging if for the last several years on the Hanlon MTN Project.They will do it anyway. It's all about the fed $$$ and land. This will close more roads and land to access. After a while no one will care about the land cause no one will be able to use it anyway and it will get sold. We already know they care about our opinions on this. The meetings are just for show, just like wolves we have no choices:yeah:
For anybody that does not no this already,they have had grizzly recovery zones for a long time here in northeast wa,which is all the same areas as lynx recovery zones,that's good , but the bad is that they use theses zones for a reason to do no management to the land,then when fires come through its a timber box waiting to burn.
Post by: hunter399 on January 13, 2017, 07:20:06 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 13, 2017, 07:30:49 PM
Thanks for telling us your elk spot ,i might have to check this place out thanks :chuckle:That's not accurate. They are still logging and using the grizzly recovery area, and putting out fires. I elk hunt in the recovery area and they have been logging if for the last several years on the Hanlon MTN Project.They will do it anyway. It's all about the fed $$$ and land. This will close more roads and land to access. After a while no one will care about the land cause no one will be able to use it anyway and it will get sold. We already know they care about our opinions on this. The meetings are just for show, just like wolves we have no choices:yeah:
For anybody that does not no this already,they have had grizzly recovery zones for a long time here in northeast wa,which is all the same areas as lynx recovery zones,that's good , but the bad is that they use theses zones for a reason to do no management to the land,then when fires come through its a timber box waiting to burn.
Post by: Humptulips on January 13, 2017, 07:44:52 PM
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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2017, 07:48:30 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 13, 2017, 07:50:14 PM
It's the feds doing the relocating.:yeah:
Which means they will do what they want.
Post by: Humptulips on January 13, 2017, 08:02:01 PM
It's the feds doing the relocating.
Forgive me I thought it was in the State of Washington. It is however a pretty good argument as to the wishes of WA.
Post by: RB on January 13, 2017, 08:09:13 PM
It's the feds doing the relocating.:yeah:
Which means they will do what they want.
:yeah:
So we have this problem Bear in (pick a region) that we have moved several times and keeps coming back, so we will just release it in the Washington wilderness yeah that's the ticket. :chuckle:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Yeah, on federal land. Mostly North Cascades National Park, so I don't know of RCWs having any sway over what feds do in there.It's the feds doing the relocating.
Forgive me I thought it was in the State of Washington. It is however a pretty good argument as to the wishes of WA.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 13, 2017, 08:15:25 PM
Post by: Ironhead on April 20, 2017, 10:25:29 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 20, 2017, 10:38:31 AM
I realize this is a little late, but is there another region in the US or world for that matter that has Grizzlies, but doesn't have either Elk or Caribou? Brown Bears don't count. I don't see Grizzlies living off grass and berries. We don't have many deer left, what are they supposed to eat in the North Cascades?
Maybe I'm confused but I thought browns and grizzlys were the same, and I thought they were all omnivores.
Post by: Ironhead on April 20, 2017, 11:44:02 AM
Post by: Special T on April 20, 2017, 12:02:08 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on April 20, 2017, 01:49:56 PM
I don't see Grizzlies living off grass and berries. We don't have many deer left, what are they supposed to eat in the North Cascades?
Grizzly bears, who reside in interior areas as opposed to the coastal brown bears of Alaska, western Canada and northeast Asia, typically have diets that are made up of 75-85% vegetation and insect matter (more info from a bear bio:http://bit.ly/2oryCw3 (http://bit.ly/2oryCw3)).
Will grizzlies prey on a few elk and deer calves when they can get them? Sure, for a few weeks in the spring. Will they use those big digging claws to eat ground squirrels, marmots and other small mammals? Absolutely, that's what they're for. But will grizzlies decimate game populations if a small handful are introduced into the North Cascades to augment the struggling population there? Will they reproduce rapidly like wolves or coyotes? No and no.
As I said in my previous post in the other grizz thread, there are plenty of questions worth considering when it comes to restoring North Cascades grizzly bears, namely, does our society have the courage to share this wild space with these big, iconic and sometimes dangerous native creatures.
But the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation obligates us to use sound SCIENCE when considering wildlife management, something we hunters love to accuse the hardline enviros of abusing in favor of emotion (often rightfully so in my opinion). Science tells us these animals mostly chow down on sedge grasses, berries, insects and rodents.
Post by: Ironhead on April 20, 2017, 02:43:37 PM
that has Grizzlies, that doesn't have Elk or Caribou? Not counting Brown Bear Habitat.
Post by: bearpaw on April 20, 2017, 03:36:44 PM
Post by: Special T on April 20, 2017, 03:37:40 PM
The elk that were transplanted in the "Nooksack" don't seem to stay in the mountains they much prefer the farmers feild and peoples back yards... why would we think Bears would be any Different?
Just because we Can, doesn't mean we Should...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Ironhead on April 20, 2017, 05:06:50 PM
The answer is NO! Why? Currently the frizz move up and down the valleys that take them back and forth to lightly inhabited areas of Canada. If introduced other places "down the valley" will be places like Arlington, Sulton, and Sedro Woolley, perhaps North Bend, Carnation and Duvall.
The elk that were transplanted in the "Nooksack" don't seem to stay in the mountains they much prefer the farmers feild and peoples back yards... why would we think Bears would be any Different?
Just because we Can, doesn't mean we Should...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Because I would like to know what is going to make up the other 15 to 25 percent of their diet. It doesn't seem like a good idea to introduce another predator if they don't have a current working model, why should we be the Guinea Pigs?
I think they will likely move down to less populated areas with higher deer concentrations such as the Sinlahekin, Methow and Entiat Valleys.
This is just another shot in the Dark, like the original wolf introduction in Idaho. More BS being shoved down our throats.
Post by: winshooter88 on April 20, 2017, 05:53:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 20, 2017, 10:52:40 PM
A friend of mine who works in wildlife management in this state, (not WDFW) went through the grizzly bear recovery plan and it was his opinion that going to the meetings that they had around the state would have been a waste of time. he believes that they have already decided what they are going to do and just had the meetings so they could say they asked the public. It is kind of like WDFW saying they had broad public support because people want more opportunities to hunt and fish but most of the direct comments about the fee increases were negative. they chose to look at the data to show that a fee increase was supported when increased opportunity was supported not a fee increase. I have been to all kinds of meetings in the last few years in regards to wildlife and recreation and it is very common for the government entities to say the public wants something when they don't, and also to come into the public comment meetings already knowing wht they plan to do no matter what the public really says. IMHO
I couldn't agree more... it's just a show to say they did the public meetings!
Post by: jasnt on April 21, 2017, 06:14:39 AM
Post by: konradcountry on April 24, 2017, 02:03:21 PM
But the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation obligates us to use sound SCIENCE when considering wildlife management, something we hunters love to accuse the hardline enviros of abusing in favor of emotion (often rightfully so in my opinion). Science tells us these animals mostly chow down on sedge grasses, berries, insects and rodents.
Conservation is more a matter of values than science.
Science is a tool that can be used for any purpose including both protecting or eliminating a species.
The real issue is that environmentalists value animals over people and will always advocate for the animal especially in the context of hunting. We saw this with Idaho where they didn't care if the wolf population could support a hunt. Once the population was deemed sustainable the environmentalists changed their argument to some arbitrary claim of "future concerns" and didn't care about data.
Environmentalists only pretend to care about data. Once they get the upper hand they don't care about your scientific studies. They think bears are wonderful and hunters are evil. That is all there is to it. For environmentalists this is a political game and not a real debate about conservation
Post by: konradcountry on April 24, 2017, 02:27:39 PM
Some key points to make:
People will be killed by grizzlies. This is an undeniable fact and there are cases where people used bear spray and were still attacked. So even if people are 100% prepared (which is an unreasonable expectation) people will still be killed.
Western Washington is not Montana or Alaska. It has a dense coastal population and a lot of hikers. The Pacific Crest Trail goes through the North Cascades. This is not a remote area that is rarely accessed by people.
So what is the point of killing people? What will you tell the families of the hikers? The grizzly population is not endangered so why sacrifice the lives of hikers?
Post by: Special T on April 24, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on April 26, 2017, 08:04:35 AM
I would not bring up hunting at all. I would take the defensive of hikers. Feds are more likely to have environmentalists and anti-hunters in their ranks.
Some key points to make:
People will be killed by grizzlies. This is an undeniable fact and there are cases where people used bear spray and were still attacked. So even if people are 100% prepared (which is an unreasonable expectation) people will still be killed.
Western Washington is not Montana or Alaska. It has a dense coastal population and a lot of hikers. The Pacific Crest Trail goes through the North Cascades. This is not a remote area that is rarely accessed by people.
So what is the point of killing people? What will you tell the families of the hikers? The grizzly population is not endangered so why sacrifice the lives of hikers?
But the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation obligates us to use sound SCIENCE when considering wildlife management, something we hunters love to accuse the hardline enviros of abusing in favor of emotion (often rightfully so in my opinion). Science tells us these animals mostly chow down on sedge grasses, berries, insects and rodents.
Conservation is more a matter of values than science.
Science is a tool that can be used for any purpose including both protecting or eliminating a species.
The real issue is that environmentalists value animals over people and will always advocate for the animal especially in the context of hunting. We saw this with Idaho where they didn't care if the wolf population could support a hunt. Once the population was deemed sustainable the environmentalists changed their argument to some arbitrary claim of "future concerns" and didn't care about data.
Environmentalists only pretend to care about data. Once they get the upper hand they don't care about your scientific studies. They think bears are wonderful and hunters are evil. That is all there is to it. For environmentalists this is a political game and not a real debate about conservation
Truer words have not been spoken.
Post by: Elkcollector82 on September 29, 2019, 07:37:14 AM
https://apnews.com/d3504b782c354c7391411b9a6ad60eaa
Post by: KNOPHISH on September 29, 2019, 09:41:56 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on September 29, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Post by: Elkcollector82 on September 29, 2019, 10:45:02 AM
Where they puttin' 200 grizz?
200 grizzlys coming to a town near you.
Post by: 3dvapor on September 29, 2019, 11:54:52 AM
Post by: Bango skank on September 29, 2019, 11:56:05 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 29, 2019, 11:58:13 AM
Post by: bigtex on September 29, 2019, 02:43:18 PM
Anyone else think it’s weird that NPS helped with the proposal? What skin do they have in the game??North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, Lake Chelan NRA...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 30, 2019, 08:13:01 AM
Anyone else think it’s weird that NPS helped with the proposal? What skin do they have in the game??North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, Lake Chelan NRA...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
@bigtex, thanks for the correction! I totally forgot about North Cascades NP and didn't realize NRA were a part of the NPS.
:tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 30, 2019, 12:13:49 PM
This is a bad idea in a state already overcome with predators. Do not consider this plan."
Post by: Special T on September 30, 2019, 01:20:58 PM
Guess Washington wasn’t screwed up enough. Back on the table.
https://apnews.com/d3504b782c354c7391411b9a6ad60eaa
The link to the comment section in the NPS site has an error
Post by: bigtex on September 30, 2019, 02:23:54 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Odell on September 30, 2019, 03:12:57 PM
Post by: Special T on September 30, 2019, 03:16:25 PM
Post by: whack em on October 22, 2019, 12:18:51 PM
I strongly object a reintroduction of the Grizzly into the North Cascades. I believe the competition they would add to an abundant of other predators for food would come at a great cost to the deer and elk populations. It's not a question as to their impact, rest assured these bears will change the landscape as we currently know it. And this impact will not be favorable.
I think too, that the inevitable deadly run in with people is not worth the cost. The North Cascades are a very well visited area by several people, the vast majority whom have never recreated within proximity of North America's apex predator. This would directly jeopardize the public. (Is the death of one innocent person worth it?)
Speaking of "run ins", I am concerned for Washington's ranching and farming communities. As already played out in Wyoming & Montana, the Grizzly has and will continue to kill livestock, and cause property damage.
-To what cost will this reintroduction be placed upon the citizens of Washington?
-Who will bear the financial burden to bring them here, monitor them, attempt to establish a public relations campaign?
-How will the ranching and farming communities be compensated for their losses for a reintroduced predator affecting their livelihood?
-What anticipated impact on the native ungulate will the reintroduction be? How will this affect hunters?
Don't lie, but please don't tell me that I will be taxed more than I already am in a state which taxes their citizens more than the average.
Furthermore, don't place my feelings as an avid hunter aside. I speak for many, maybe a silent majority in this proposal.
Post by: KP-Skagit on October 22, 2019, 12:42:59 PM
Unfortunately logic tends to not go to far these days.
Post by: RB on November 09, 2019, 09:02:20 PM
I find it ironic that the same wing nuts that preach science for climate change and other enviomental issues suddenly loose all reality when it comes to managing game!
Post by: jasnt on November 10, 2019, 07:00:33 AM
Post by: bigtex on November 10, 2019, 10:34:39 AM
It’s against wa state law to transplant grizz in wa.Federal preemption let's the feds do what they want even if state law forbids it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: luvmystang67 on November 08, 2023, 10:40:12 AM
Alternative A is the "do nothing" alternative for those of you not interested in reading.
Sorry if there is a different thread on this, I searched and couldn't find a newer one.
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=112008&documentID=132104
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2023, 11:04:19 AM
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 08, 2023, 11:10:19 AM
They are at this again and taking public comment until Nov 13.
Alternative A is the "do nothing" alternative for those of you not interested in reading.
Sorry if there is a different thread on this, I searched and couldn't find a newer one.
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=112008&documentID=132104
Good call. Comment submitted
I support Alternative A- no action. Competition for already struggling food sources from cougars and an increasing wolf population will quickly drive grizzlies out of this core habitat zone and into areas with too much human conflict.
Post by: mcrawfordaf on November 08, 2023, 11:31:40 AM
They are at this again and taking public comment until Nov 13.
Alternative A is the "do nothing" alternative for those of you not interested in reading.
Sorry if there is a different thread on this, I searched and couldn't find a newer one.
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=112008&documentID=132104
I posted a thread about this last month I think: https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,281880.msg3836647.html#msg3836647 (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,281880.msg3836647.html#msg3836647)
Just FYI Convervation NW and a couple other Anti-orgs have this set up like a Howl.org email going out for support of Alternative B or C. So get your comments in for Alternative A and get your buddies to too.
Post by: pickardjw on November 08, 2023, 11:35:40 AM
"The plan to transplant these apex predators into the Northern Cascades is unwise and contrary to the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Grizzlies haven't been hunted in several decades and there are grizzly bears to the north in BC. Why haven't they repopulated on their own with no hunting pressure? Because the habitat will no longer support them. Your proposal not only endangers the animals you seek to "protect", but prioritizes these predators over other wildlife AND human beings in the area. If there were a void, nature would fill it. Stop playing God and return to practicing sound scientific wildlife management. Do not transplant grizzlies into the Northern Cascades."
Well said, much more eloquent than my comment :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2023, 02:04:27 PM
"The plan to transplant these apex predators into the Northern Cascades is unwise and contrary to the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Grizzlies haven't been hunted in several decades and there are grizzly bears to the north in BC. Why haven't they repopulated on their own with no hunting pressure? Because the habitat will no longer support them. Your proposal not only endangers the animals you seek to "protect", but prioritizes these predators over other wildlife AND human beings in the area. If there were a void, nature would fill it. Stop playing God and return to practicing sound scientific wildlife management. Do not transplant grizzlies into the Northern Cascades."
Well said, much more eloquent than my comment :chuckle:
I did eliminate some less-than-eloquent verbiage!!! :chuckle:
Post by: LDennis24 on November 08, 2023, 02:09:09 PM
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grizzly-bears-human-interactions-1.6994167
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7020555
Post by: bearpaw on November 11, 2023, 08:26:35 AM
Quote
Please allow nature to take it's course, if grizzlies are meant to be in the cascades they will migrate from British Columbia, look at the bear attacks happening in the rocky mountain region, it's a serious mistake to be transplanting apex carnivores so close to large human population centers, this will result in many people being put in harms way!
Post by: 30.06 on November 11, 2023, 09:39:18 AM
I support Alternative A. I am in and using North Cascades National Park an average of 3 times a month, year round. I also use the neighboring National Forest lands frequently.
--------In the main body area here I used Pianoman's words. Thanks!------------
Let this one go. Why are you pushing it so hard?
Reintoduce Wolves in Washington, D.C.
Reintroduce Cougars in New York City.
Reintroduce Bears in Chicago.
Reintroduce the plain and simple idea to stop Human meddling in Nature's affairs. There was an old fable about this, starts small and then they ended up sending in the Elephants. But what will crop the Elephants?
Stick your nose back into your own backyard and feed some squirrels if that's what will help you sleep better at night. We have plenty of Black Bears in the North Cascades.
Also, above the comment section but below the address boxes I entered Mule Deer Foundation. Same as the last go around. My main concern is whether that hurts or helps. Why are they asking what Organization I belong to and support?
This has been getting talked about on the radio on the wetside, Kiro and Komo. They won't quit until the deer and elk are decimated. Thanks for the updates.
Post by: timberfaller on November 16, 2023, 01:20:03 PM
https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/11/09/grizzly-restoration-plan-elicits-strong-opinions/