Post by: Mtnwalker on February 08, 2017, 11:21:52 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 08, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
For even further back, when the British had Washington and established a fur trade there were lots of griz; but they killed a lot/most of them due to conflicts while trapping along the rivers back when there were tons of salmon in WA rivers.
Post by: SpurInSpokane on February 08, 2017, 11:50:40 AM
It does not specifically address hunting in Washington, but gives the broad picture that hunting grizzlies in most areas was unregulated until the 1950s, and were first listed as threatened under the Endangered Species act in 1975.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_038072.pdf (https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_038072.pdf)
Post by: Bullkllr on February 08, 2017, 11:56:02 AM
This might be helpful:http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/history/ (http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/history/)
Hudson Bay Company trapping records show that 3,788 grizzly bear hides were shipped from trading posts in the North Cascades area between 1827 and 1859. The decimation of the North Cascades grizzly bear population continued for more than a century with commercial trapping, habitat loss, and unregulated hunting the leading causes of death. The last grizzly bear to be killed in the North Cascades of Washington was in 1967 in Fisher Creek (in what is now North Cascades National Park).
This is mostly about Oregon, but mentions Wash a few times: http://www.oregonwild.org/about/blog/oregon-grizzly-country (http://www.oregonwild.org/about/blog/oregon-grizzly-country)
In Lewis and Clark Among the Grizzlies, Paul Schullery uses Seton’s map, the accounts of the Corps of Discovery, and some early Washington State records to suggest that most of Oregon north of the Klamaths (and southwestern Washington) was basically devoid of grizzlies, possibly because of dense indigenous populations in the greater Columbia Basin.
Post by: Mtnwalker on February 08, 2017, 12:43:35 PM
Post by: SpurInSpokane on February 08, 2017, 12:59:30 PM
The Northern Cascades and Selkirk populations were likely under 50 bears each at the time the report was written, and will probably keep declining if left alone.
The report does seem to be older. I couldn't find a year of publication, but the references are all from the 90s or earlier. Not sure of more recent population estimates.
Post by: bracer40 on February 08, 2017, 01:22:19 PM
Thanks guys. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding why they think there should be more here than there are. Seems like with 40-50 years of no hunting and virtually no natural predators except other bears there would be more here if there was supposed to be more here. I'm probably preaching to the choir here I'm sure.
I don't know why some might think we need more grizzlies in WA but I did listen to a cool podcast of meat eater the other day. In episode 54 he talked with a wildlife biologist about her experiences with field studies and particularly how studies of apex predators (bears, wolves & cats) were highly sought after by biologists. When I saw this post I imagined senior wildlife people pushing these types of projects because of their charismatic nature among the public. Just something to think about.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 08, 2017, 01:42:24 PM
It's certainly the case pertaining to salmon/steelhead. You can find field studies to support any agenda, and many of them appear to be created to do just that.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 08, 2017, 02:23:06 PM
It is difficult to find hard data.
This might be helpful:http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/history/ (http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/history/)
Hudson Bay Company trapping records show that 3,788 grizzly bear hides were shipped from trading posts in the North Cascades area between 1827 and 1859. The decimation of the North Cascades grizzly bear population continued for more than a century with commercial trapping, habitat loss, and unregulated hunting the leading causes of death. The last grizzly bear to be killed in the North Cascades of Washington was in 1967 in Fisher Creek (in what is now North Cascades National Park).
This is mostly about Oregon, but mentions Wash a few times: http://www.oregonwild.org/about/blog/oregon-grizzly-country (http://www.oregonwild.org/about/blog/oregon-grizzly-country)
In Lewis and Clark Among the Grizzlies, Paul Schullery uses Seton’s map, the accounts of the Corps of Discovery, and some early Washington State records to suggest that most of Oregon north of the Klamaths (and southwestern Washington) was basically devoid of grizzlies, possibly because of dense indigenous populations in the greater Columbia Basin.
I have seen that grizzley scull, and it wasn't very big, probably a sub adult.
Post by: garrett89 on February 10, 2017, 09:25:42 AM
Thanks guys. I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding why they think there should be more here than there are. Seems like with 40-50 years of no hunting and virtually no natural predators except other bears there would be more here if there was supposed to be more here. I'm probably preaching to the choir here I'm sure.
I don't know why some might think we need more grizzlies in WA but I did listen to a cool podcast of meat eater the other day. In episode 54 he talked with a wildlife biologist about her experiences with field studies and particularly how studies of apex predators (bears, wolves & cats) were highly sought after by biologists. When I saw this post I imagined senior wildlife people pushing these types of projects because of their charismatic nature among the public. Just something to think about.
It'd be those crazy people who don't think of the consequences until after said re-populated animals start messing everything up. By then they would say it was those that put them there or they should have never been extinct from the area to begin with.