Post by: Colorado Kid on February 09, 2017, 04:48:33 PM
Post by: Mtnwalker on February 09, 2017, 04:52:59 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on February 09, 2017, 05:35:55 PM
Post by: splitshot on February 09, 2017, 06:23:40 PM
Post by: Bill W on February 09, 2017, 06:26:45 PM
why do we need grizzly bear? mike w
so you don't have to drive so far to shoot one.
Post by: jasnt on February 09, 2017, 07:04:53 PM
Why is this in the sponsors classified?
Post by: garrett89 on February 09, 2017, 10:16:38 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 10, 2017, 09:05:32 AM
Post by: garrett89 on February 10, 2017, 09:30:20 AM
I've commented. For those attending the hearing, the USFWS and the WDFW lied to us about the impact of wolves on our state and others, and we knew they were lying when the proposal was made. They withheld information regarding echinococcus granulosus and the extent to which the wolves were infected with it. We have no idea what the next decade holds for us regarding wolf population numbers and the effect it'll have on ungulates, household pets, businesses, and our people. For us to import another apex predator before we can figure out how to control the effect of wolves would be an incredibly horrible wildlife management decision.One would think they should eradicate the problem. The people in charge from what I've seen going on in this state are very dumb when it comes to reasoning. E.g. Jay Inslee, Bob Ferguson, and Ed Murray. All of them are morons. If they just kept the stupid ones out of control of things, maybe things will be done with actual facts,reasoning, and tact before any action being takes place.
Post by: BlackRiverTaxidermy on February 10, 2017, 10:11:50 AM
It was the same with the wolves....talk from WDFW spoke about 'reintroducing' a predator species when they already had knowledge, information, and catalog of animals already thriving in the area. They (WDFW) are going to do whatever they are going to do without any input from both the public or sportsman...its total BS.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 10, 2017, 11:19:30 AM
I've commented. For those attending the hearing, the USFWS and the WDFW lied to us about the impact of wolves on our state and others, and we knew they were lying when the proposal was made. They withheld information regarding echinococcus granulosus and the extent to which the wolves were infected with it. We have no idea what the next decade holds for us regarding wolf population numbers and the effect it'll have on ungulates, household pets, businesses, and our people. For us to import another apex predator before we can figure out how to control the effect of wolves would be an incredibly horrible wildlife management decision.One would think they should eradicate the problem. The people in charge from what I've seen going on in this state are very dumb when it comes to reasoning. E.g. Jay Inslee, Bob Ferguson, and Ed Murray. All of them are morons. If they just kept the stupid ones out of control of things, maybe things will be done with actual facts,reasoning, and tact before any action being takes place.
When your only real goal is getting re-elected, you pander to the stupid and uninformed.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2017, 11:59:30 AM
There are already grizzlies there. Several colleges have been doing studies with wildlife/ecology students. There are bait sites set up in several locations not far from the border, but it is in the North Cascades. These sites are surrounded by barbed wire just high enough off the ground to snag hair from the bears so they can both catalog their DNA as well as 'keep track of them'. Last I heard they have 4-6 confirmed Washington bears that are frequent visitors to the research location (s).Do you have a source for that?
It was the same with the wolves....talk from WDFW spoke about 'reintroducing' a predator species when they already had knowledge, information, and catalog of animals already thriving in the area. They (WDFW) are going to do whatever they are going to do without any input from both the public or sportsman...its total BS.
Post by: BlackRiverTaxidermy on February 10, 2017, 12:51:07 PM
Yes, two Oregon State Game Wardens (not going to mention names) who I hunted with last year and who were investigating a possible poaching of a Washington grizzly several years ago. There was a taxidermist in Oregon that took a bear in with an unusual story of where it came from. They went to take hair samples of the hide which is how they are able to make charges because of the recorded DNA samples of the bears that were in Washington and being researched by biologists and students. They were very detailed of the tracking/recording practices for the bears in the north cascades. I confirmed this information with a Washington state biologist, he was VERY hesitant to confirm but finally said yes, they are there.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2017, 01:08:34 PM
Post by: bracer40 on February 10, 2017, 02:02:34 PM
And yes, it's been acknowledged that a small population exists in the North Cascades.
Post by: bracer40 on February 10, 2017, 02:06:15 PM
Post by: Colorado Kid on February 10, 2017, 02:18:09 PM
Post by: Huntin Hounds on February 10, 2017, 03:21:35 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 10, 2017, 08:37:45 PM
There are already a hand full of grizzlies in the north cascades and northeast Washington. Those move back and forth between Idaho, Canada and Washington. It's amazing with all the grizzlies and wolves in Montana that they still have elk and deer. :rolleyes:montana has way more habitat and has always had more deer and elk and they trap and hunt wolves. We don't have that option and never will
Post by: Thefishguy77 on February 10, 2017, 09:19:21 PM
Done
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: smittyJ on February 11, 2017, 08:04:31 AM
Post by: Tbar on February 11, 2017, 08:08:17 AM
I was just doing a search on Grizzly Bears PNW and found a 2016 Sierra Club article saying is has been at least 50 since the the last Grizz was photographed. :bash: :bash: :bash:Can you post a link?
Post by: fisheral87 on February 11, 2017, 08:37:20 AM
TIA,
Al
Post by: Thefishguy77 on February 11, 2017, 12:05:28 PM
With all the "re-introduction" of Apex predators it's beginning to appear that the feel good groups of people want to have the forests as their personal zoo.
I really don't think these people understand the raw power of a grizzly. Staying in your tent trailer and the bear wants in. It's probably harder for us to open a Pepsi. This whole thing revolves around balance. If they put bear in places they weren't before then the whole system needs to readjust. 7-15 years minimum of adjustment time. Bear population grows elk and deer populations shrink then balance. Factor in wolves and then it's a rebalance. Then factor in humans hunting and it's a rebalance again.
We were fairly well balanced before the wolf debacle and now they are thinning packs or eliminating them all together. Where elk and deer were plentiful a few years back they are scarce now. Moved or eaten we don't really know.
Just wait until the first kid gets eaten and then all heck will break loose. Remember when that guy (senator?) got attacked by a Black bear over in Leavenworth on vacation. People were shocked that a bear would attack a person. We have people influencing policy who's idea of being in the woods is driving across I-90 or staying at a campground in Mt. Rainier park. Suddenly they have their finger on the pulse.
Climbing off soapbox now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: smittyJ on February 12, 2017, 07:17:27 AM
I was just doing a search on Grizzly Bears PNW and found a 2016 Sierra Club article saying is has been at least 50 since the the last Grizz was photographed. :bash: :bash: :bash:Can you post a link?
Sorry, mis-read it, shot and killed, not photoed.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/green-life/left-coast-griz
Post by: brush hunter on February 12, 2017, 07:29:29 AM
why do we need grizzly bear? mike wTo kill off the animals the wolves miss....DUH!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 12, 2017, 09:36:13 AM
No they run the wolves off the wolf kills so the wolves have to go kill other things.why do we need grizzly bear? mike wTo kill off the animals the wolves miss....DUH!
Saw a documentary on Yellowstone and the bear try to follow the wolves now, stealing the deer/elk/moose from the pack. The bears don't even hibernate now that they have wolf kills to plunder.
Post by: X-Force on February 14, 2017, 12:46:51 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U927s0bYU34&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U927s0bYU34&feature=youtu.be)
Post by: garrett89 on February 14, 2017, 04:41:03 PM
Post by: Thefishguy77 on February 15, 2017, 03:41:11 PM
They should quit thinking about re-introducing anything. Get rid of the wolves first.Get rid of the introduced wolf first. The ones that have been here since whenever have coexisted just fine with our herds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jasnt on February 15, 2017, 04:57:17 PM
those wolves are no more. Either bred out or killed for compition. They grey wolf is not the native species and they are much larger and stronger than the native timber wolf.They should quit thinking about re-introducing anything. Get rid of the wolves first.Get rid of the introduced wolf first. The ones that have been here since whenever have coexisted just fine with our herds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The few videos I saw on YouTube made it sound like the state has maid up its mind.
Post by: vandeman17 on February 15, 2017, 05:40:35 PM
Post by: 2labs on February 15, 2017, 06:02:28 PM
Post by: garrett89 on February 15, 2017, 06:26:09 PM
Quote. Chanel 13, experts say only 10 to 13 in the north Cascades, we need to bring in a couple hundred. Holy *censored*, wouldn't they be here if the habitat would support them!..... :bash:They'll change their mind when the bears roam outside the drop zone and into human areas. Our state is full of hippies and don't think of the consequences of re-introduction of any animal. Have they seen whales that were in captivity released into the ocean? All of them die. Or the stupid wolves that are here now, killing everything in sight.
Post by: vandeman17 on February 15, 2017, 06:28:47 PM
Quote. Chanel 13, experts say only 10 to 13 in the north Cascades, we need to bring in a couple hundred. Holy *censored*, wouldn't they be here if the habitat would support them!..... :bash:
They have 4 proposed options
Post by: jasnt on February 16, 2017, 08:27:23 AM
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 09:12:32 AM
When I was in high school I did a report on grizzly and at that time (98) the state claimed we had 54 grizzlies in WA and also 50% more that where only here at specific times of the year. Now they say a dozen? Wish I could find that report as that info came from dfw. Where did they all go? Why has the population not increased?
If they were in wolf territory, the wolves will kill them. No remorse, they'll drive them until they can attack. The wolf territory can be over 1,000 miles and there's 19 confirmed packs.
Post by: jasnt on February 16, 2017, 09:38:36 AM
then why are yellow stone grizzly staying out all winter chasing wolves off their kills? I can see then killing younger bears but a mature grizz? Pretty hard to believe that grey wolves dropped the population of griz by about 80%When I was in high school I did a report on grizzly and at that time (98) the state claimed we had 54 grizzlies in WA and also 50% more that where only here at specific times of the year. Now they say a dozen? Wish I could find that report as that info came from dfw. Where did they all go? Why has the population not increased?
If they were in wolf territory, the wolves will kill them. No remorse, they'll drive them until they can attack. The wolf territory can be over 1,000 miles and there's 19 confirmed packs.
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 09:55:03 AM
then why are yellow stone grizzly staying out all winter chasing wolves off their kills? I can see then killing younger bears but a mature grizz? Pretty hard to believe that grey wolves dropped the population of griz by about 80%When I was in high school I did a report on grizzly and at that time (98) the state claimed we had 54 grizzlies in WA and also 50% more that where only here at specific times of the year. Now they say a dozen? Wish I could find that report as that info came from dfw. Where did they all go? Why has the population not increased?
If they were in wolf territory, the wolves will kill them. No remorse, they'll drive them until they can attack. The wolf territory can be over 1,000 miles and there's 19 confirmed packs.
What else do you think then? I doubt many hunters mistake a grizzly with a black bear. The food sources haven't changed. What else can you think then? You can't quote yellow stone grizzlies following wolves for their kill because yellowstone is huge and has a way bigger population of game for wolves to hunt than here. The biologist who are supposed to be watching activity with animal population are to blame as well. Instead of watching the native species (grizzly) they've added wolves that are way bigger and non-native to washington state and their patterns just in breeding and not anything else.
Post by: jasnt on February 16, 2017, 10:07:09 AM
Post by: WAPatriot on February 16, 2017, 10:30:44 AM
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 10:30:54 AM
Habitat is the issue. Way to many black bear in this state eating the food sources. To many predators period. Not enough game to go around and herds continue to decline. But the number 1 reason in my opinion is Wdfw has never been able to get an accurate population count of any animal period! If they can't properly manage the game we have now how are they going to do with another apex predator population growing and game still in decline. By raising prices and selling less tags, less opertunety, less hunter recruitment.
Right? I honestly don't mind if grizzlies make there way back in but, not until they rid of the wolves. I have a big problem with the wolf issue if you couldn't tell. Haha.
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 10:32:29 AM
I hope we get the costal brown bears from kodiak maybe a couple of polar bears too.
Heck no, I'm tired of non-native species getting invited over onto non-native land. Have you seen the videos about the salmon population going down since some stupid person started putting pikes in the lakes, streams and rivers?
Post by: jasnt on February 16, 2017, 11:20:06 AM
he was joking 🙃I hope we get the costal brown bears from kodiak maybe a couple of polar bears too.
Heck no, I'm tired of non-native species getting invited over onto non-native land. Have you seen the videos about the salmon population going down since some stupid person started putting pikes in the lakes, streams and rivers?
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 11:22:18 AM
he was joking 🙃I hope we get the costal brown bears from kodiak maybe a couple of polar bears too.
Heck no, I'm tired of non-native species getting invited over onto non-native land. Have you seen the videos about the salmon population going down since some stupid person started putting pikes in the lakes, streams and rivers?
It may be a joke but, I take things like that really seriously. Good and bad thing I guess.
Post by: Thefishguy77 on February 16, 2017, 07:37:47 PM
I hope we get the costal brown bears from kodiak maybe a couple of polar bears too.
Heck no, I'm tired of non-native species getting invited over onto non-native land. Have you seen the videos about the salmon population going down since some stupid person started putting pikes in the lakes, streams and rivers?
That small potatoes compared to what damns and fish farms do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JJB11B on February 16, 2017, 07:42:26 PM
Try using that same argument about refugees. the looks I got were priceless! "they're people not animals!" haha "sure they are"I hope we get the costal brown bears from kodiak maybe a couple of polar bears too.
Heck no, I'm tired of non-native species getting invited over onto non-native land. Have you seen the videos about the salmon population going down since some stupid person started putting pikes in the lakes, streams and rivers?
That small potatoes compared to what damns and fish farms do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: WARHORSE on February 16, 2017, 08:47:13 PM
Post by: smittyJ on February 17, 2017, 07:01:36 AM
I attended the "open house" tonight.. its ok guys i was assured these bears cant read maps but dont go within 500 yards of roads or well used trails! And thats when i walked out.. i mean these guys must really know :bash:their stuff
Tell that to an Alaskan!
Post by: wolfbait on February 17, 2017, 11:19:27 PM
Argues Mitch Friedman, director of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, "Wolves in the Olympics make perfect political sense because you've got a congressman who wants them in his district. But biologically speaking, why are we starting another batch of cookies while we let the ones we've already got in the oven burn?"
While funding for the Olympic wolf-restoration program has been rolling through the House, the Fish and Wildlife Service last week announced it had completed a grizzly-bear recovery plan for the North Cascades - a study first begun in 1991.
Read More@ http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970714&slug=2549520
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Post by: Special T on February 20, 2017, 02:10:25 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on February 20, 2017, 02:27:03 PM
Post by: X-Force on February 20, 2017, 02:33:51 PM
Grizzly bears could return to the North Cascades – or not. The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently released a draft Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, and will present information on the alternatives and how to submit formal public comment at a meeting Feb. 22 with the Skagit County Board of Commissioners.
The public meeting is set for 9 a.m. Wednesday, Feb. 22, at the Commissioners’ Hearing Room, 1800 Continental Place, Mount Vernon.
Skagit County Commissioners want to hear feedback on the proposed options from members of the public, but formal public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be accepted. Instead, representatives from the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will explain their process for submitting formal public comment.
More information about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, including dates and times of additional open houses, and information about submitting public comment is available online at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/grizzlydeis. (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/grizzlydeis.)
Comments may also be submitted through March 14, 2017, via regular mail or hand delivery at: Superintendent’s Office, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284
Post by: Special T on February 20, 2017, 02:42:12 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on February 20, 2017, 02:49:07 PM
So they are going to hold 2 meetings the same day? One in darrington one down town MV? I would love to go, but I'm not sure I'm well versed enough on the subject to be a great voice on the issue. Perhaps I could go and just report on it.
There is no voice, it's an open house with a bunch of banners you can read along with a few employees that you can ask questions. At least that is how the cashmere one was set up. Quite the joke :twocents:
Post by: Colorado Kid on February 20, 2017, 03:52:44 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on February 20, 2017, 03:54:58 PM
As frustrating as it is, I think we still need to at least make a showing of numbers to demonstrate that there are many residents of Washington who are concerned and or against reintroducing Grizzlies. The safety issue, the cost ( couldn't our tax dollars be better spent), the impact on our game (unlike Yellowstone Park and Glacier National Park where there is no hunting allowed) closing off areas to the public, are all valid concerns. We need to let them see not everyone wants transplanted Grizzlies helicoptered into the North Cascades Ecosystem without these and other issues addressed. If the powers to be are still wanting to proceed after all our concerns and comments are stated, at least we participated. We should make sure before they start the process they have all their t's crossed and i's dotted. Strength in numbers, let them know you care what happens. Hunters may only make up 4% of Washington's population, but our voices still count! Send them your comments.
I agree but showing up will do no good if it is an open house like I went to. There is nobody there to hear our voices, instead they leave out pieces of paper to write your comments or give you a link to a website to submit your comment.
Post by: Special T on February 20, 2017, 03:57:45 PM
Post by: Special T on February 20, 2017, 03:58:51 PM
Post by: Colorado Kid on February 20, 2017, 05:03:01 PM
Post by: fisheral87 on February 21, 2017, 09:26:39 AM
9:00 a.m. – Skagit County Board of Commissioners Hearing Room
1800 Continental Place, Mount Vernon, WA – Google Maps
*Note: This is a special meeting of the Skagit County Board of Commissioners regarding grizzly bear restoration. It's important for Skagit County grizzly bear supporters to attend and speak up on behalf of grizzly bear restoration!
Al
Post by: Colorado Kid on February 21, 2017, 04:33:56 PM
Post by: bracer40 on February 21, 2017, 05:41:53 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 21, 2017, 05:53:01 PM
Another contact to send your comments to are our elected representatives, make sure they understand our concerns! Hopefully we can find more avenues to find those who will advocate for outdoorsman and hunters, and protect what deer, moose, and elk populations we have left. Why isn't something being done to save the endangered woodland caribou population that is disappearing from south of the Canadian border. High wolf population and now Grizzlies??? Who picked Grizzlies as the priority? I wonder if an overpopulation of National Park Grizzlies are being moved to Washington!its all part of the shift to non-consumptive management
Post by: SpurInSpokane on February 21, 2017, 09:22:28 PM
When I was in high school I did a report on grizzly and at that time (98) the state claimed we had 54 grizzlies in WA and also 50% more that where only here at specific times of the year. Now they say a dozen? Wish I could find that report as that info came from dfw. Where did they all go? Why has the population not increased?
This is a really good question, and the answer gets at why they're pushing to bring in grizzlies.
I believe the report you're referencing is :https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_038072.pdf (https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_038072.pdf)
If not, it's close to the same time, and estimates a total of around 50 grizzlies in the North Cascades and Selkirk ecosystems.
The problem highlighted in the report is that these numbers, split between two ecosystems, is too low to maintain the population. In other words, 50 bears in 1999/2000 translates to fewer bears today, there's just not enough to reproduce and keep up with mortality.
The number needed to maintain the population? They estimate 200 bears, which is why they're pushing to bring in grizzlies from Montana or BC (the rate is the main difference between the 4 options) to try and get the population to maintenance level.
TL;DR: Anything less than ~200 bears is as good as zero grizzlies in WA.
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2017, 10:12:07 AM
Chris Morgan bear specialist bio 20 year was state Bellingham grizzly bear outreach program
Gary citizens alliance for property rights had lots of good statistics on Grizzly and the pro crowd not from here.
Randy from Hamilton not a fan of usfw called out how has currently managed elk.
RCW77.12.035 making importation of Grizzlies illegal.
Wolf haven international rep was here Steven Cow
Grand Taylor advocacy group national conservation advocacy for NP group.
Direct friends of Skagit county spoke on only representing herself. She makes a case that we need more risk assessment the Dems is in sufficent and comparable for transplant are too different.
Post by: buglebrush on February 22, 2017, 10:22:14 AM
Post by: buglebrush on February 22, 2017, 10:26:29 AM
I was just doing a search on Grizzly Bears PNW and found a 2016 Sierra Club article saying is has been at least 50 since the the last Grizz was photographed. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Ha! I got about 40 pictures of Griz in WA this year alone! Ridiculous! :bash:
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2017, 10:29:20 AM
Www.skagitcounty.net. click
Directory
Skagit21
On Demand Online
Border of commissioners meeting
Feb 22 9am
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2017, 10:33:31 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 22, 2017, 10:37:36 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 22, 2017, 10:43:27 AM
It's not like the canadian border is fenced.....introduction is a stupid way of phrasing want they really want to do...more alpha predators less big game. Less hunters...
Post by: NWWA Hunter on February 22, 2017, 10:44:26 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: buglebrush on February 22, 2017, 10:57:52 AM
If they want to be here they already know how to get in...I saw grizz in the Alpine lakes in the mid 90's..took a pic, showed the region 3 bio...he's like yep, we know a few are around... PS don't tell anyone..
It's not like the canadian border is fenced.....introduction is a stupid way of phrasing want they really want to do...more alpha predators less big game. Less hunters...
Exactly. The future of hunting in WA is not good. I am starting to build points for myself and my kids in other states.
Post by: Southpole on February 22, 2017, 11:09:54 AM
They're just letting the public know what they ARE going to do, they don't care to hear your opinion. It's a done deal.So they are going to hold 2 meetings the same day? One in darrington one down town MV? I would love to go, but I'm not sure I'm well versed enough on the subject to be a great voice on the issue. Perhaps I could go and just report on it.
There is no voice, it's an open house with a bunch of banners you can read along with a few employees that you can ask questions. At least that is how the cashmere one was set up. Quite the joke :twocents:
Post by: Southpole on February 22, 2017, 11:14:55 AM
I too have seen grizzlies in Washington and know of numerous animals others have seen. I wouldn't be opposed to having a managed grizzly population in remote areas. But the problem is that the animal rights groups and liberals will use grizzlies as a tool to lock up access and restrict hunting. For these reasons I am forced to oppose grizzly introductions! :twocents:It's the absolutely the last "tool" the enviros are going to use to limit and or shut down hunting altogether, it's pretty clear to me :dunno:
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2017, 11:46:20 AM
There was the usual crowd in support of predators Wolf haven international,DoW, a bear bio and some people claiming to have lived in AK that wolves and bears were no big deal.
I was surprised by 2 things. 1st the USFS originally had NO intention of having a meeting in Skagit County. Not a shocker that Bellingham, Renton and other urban areas were on the original list. 2 there was a fair ammount of dissent from un expected groups. A long time member of the Alpine Club, the director of Friends of Skagit county speaking for herself. They are a conservation group and she mentioned some technical failings of DEIS acronym. Don't know what it means but her complaint was mostly in regards to cost projections being represented inaccurately.
There were several residents who pounced on the fact that Elk were transplanted into the area. They didn't stay in the mountains like they told us, and management isn't doing a very good job. How will Grizzlies be any different?
Gary from Citizens Alliance for Property Rights gave the most informed retort to the need to transplant wolves. I will be in contact with him so that I can share the information he presented.
Commisioners present for all or the comments were Ken Dalstedt a fairly conservative Democrat commisioners, Lisa Janicki, & Ron Wesen.
I've met Ken before and in most cases is a fairly thought out commisioners. I don't know either of the other 2, however I haven't been particularly impressed with Lisa. The large Janicki family employs a lot of people and she spent a lot of $ to get the seat, we'll in excess of the wages for the job. The things I've heard were not complementary.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 22, 2017, 12:02:07 PM
Post by: kevinlisa06 on February 22, 2017, 03:31:25 PM
Post by: kevinlisa06 on February 22, 2017, 03:32:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2017, 04:12:47 PM
They're just letting the public know what they ARE going to do, they don't care to hear your opinion. It's a done deal.So they are going to hold 2 meetings the same day? One in darrington one down town MV? I would love to go, but I'm not sure I'm well versed enough on the subject to be a great voice on the issue. Perhaps I could go and just report on it.
There is no voice, it's an open house with a bunch of banners you can read along with a few employees that you can ask questions. At least that is how the cashmere one was set up. Quite the joke :twocents:
exactly, they are just going through the motions so they can say they held public meetings, that's how they do everything now :twocents:
Post by: garrett89 on February 22, 2017, 05:06:25 PM
I also think it's a ploy to lock up lands.Right? Can't shoot wolves because they're wolves. Next can't shoot a grizzly because it's a grizzly. They might as well start a war with gun/bow/muzzle loader owners/hunters.
Post by: wolfbait on February 22, 2017, 05:33:08 PM
They're just letting the public know what they ARE going to do, they don't care to hear your opinion. It's a done deal.So they are going to hold 2 meetings the same day? One in darrington one down town MV? I would love to go, but I'm not sure I'm well versed enough on the subject to be a great voice on the issue. Perhaps I could go and just report on it.
There is no voice, it's an open house with a bunch of banners you can read along with a few employees that you can ask questions. At least that is how the cashmere one was set up. Quite the joke :twocents:
exactly, they are just going through the motions so they can say they held public meetings, that's how they do everything now :twocents:
:yeah:
Wolves were brought in to ruin ranching and hunting, the grizzly bear is being brought in to close down mass public lands. Watch and see.
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2017, 08:03:08 PM
If your a Skagit County residents I highly recomend writing them. The main purpose for the meeting was so the commissioners could listen to residents before they make thier recommendation. I'm in favor of Option A do nothing.
commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us
Post by: X-Force on February 22, 2017, 08:31:01 PM
Some additional information I gathered today. Ron Wesen is a dairy farmer and his family has been for a long time I belive in the Bow area.
If your a Skagit County residents I highly recomend writing them. The main purpose for the meeting was so the commissioners could listen to residents before they make thier recommendation. I'm in favor of Option A do nothing.
commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us
Thanks for the update!
Post by: wolfbait on February 23, 2017, 11:20:46 AM
The agency is launching a three-year process to study a variety of options for helping their population. Director Jonathan B. Jarvis stressed that the process is required under federal law but no decision had been made.
Native American tribes and conservation groups have pressed for years for the federal government to do more to bring back the bears.
"It marks the potential turning point in the decades-long decline of the last grizzly bears remaining on the U.S. West Coast," Joe Scott, international conservation director of Conservation Northwest, said in a written statement. "Without recovery efforts, these bears may soon be gone forever."
Numerous grizzly bears roamed north-central Washington state in the past, but early settlers and trappers killed thousands for fur in the mid-19th century. The region's booming population has also encroached on their habitat.
The tribes have cited their cultural connection to the bears in urging their preservation.
Federal authorities listed the grizzly bear as threatened in the lower 48 states in 1975 and ultimately designated five areas in Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to focus on boosting the population.
A small population of grizzlies exists in Washington's Selkirk Mountains, and the park service says the animals have been seen recently in the Cascades north of the Canadian border. But they haven't been seen in the Washington Cascades in years.
Officials have been looking hard, too. In the past three years, they've set up "hair-snare" traps — basically bait surrounded by stretches of barbed wire that snag samples of a bear's hair — in about one-third of the North Cascades region. The traps have produced many samples of black bear hair, as confirmed by DNA tests, but no grizzly hair, said Bob Everitt, northwest Washington regional director of the state Fish and Wildlife Department.
"It doesn't mean there aren't grizzly bears, but it sure suggests they're pretty rare," Everitt said.
In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service added a chapter on the North Cascades to its grizzly bear recovery plan. The document said that within five years, authorities should evaluate options for recovering bears in the region, which covers a 9,800-square-mile swath of north-central Washington state, including the eastern and western slopes of the Cascades, North Cascades National Park, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
It suggested that a sustainable grizzly population in the North Cascades might be about 200 to 400 bears.
Since that chapter was added, some work has been done to improve conditions for grizzlies in the North Cascades that mainly involved securing garbage to keep bears away from humans, Everitt said.
"There's only so much you can do when you don't have any bears," he added.
A Washington Farm Bureau spokesman sounded a note of caution.
"Grizzly bears are incredible, wonderful animals," Tom Davis, Farm Bureau director of government relations, told The Seattle Times. "I just wouldn't want them living next door to me, and I think that's how farmers and ranchers ... feel."
Even though recovery efforts will occur primarily on federal lands, nearby private landowners are likely to be affected, said Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association.
Ranchers in the northeastern part of the state are already dealing with livestock losses caused by the return of wolf packs, Field told The Times.
Lawmakers made clear in the mid-1990s that they didn't want bears introduced in the state. A law passed at the time directs the Fish and Wildlife Department to work to encourage the natural recovery of grizzly populations but says: "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 park service said it would work with the U.S. Forest Service, the state and the public in making any decisions, including about whether to bring grizzlies into the area.
"Grizzly bears are controversial," Everitt said. "We want to make sure everyone is heard on this issue before it gets concluded."
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8f309f099f2c4f09921663addd4ddc57/WA--Grizzly-Bear-Reintroduction
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
"Lawmakers made clear in the mid-1990s that they didn't want bears introduced in the state. A law passed at the time directs the Fish and Wildlife Department to work to encourage the natural recovery of grizzly populations but says: "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. "
Post by: wolfbait on February 23, 2017, 11:26:29 AM
www.epi-us.com/globalize.pdf
THEY'RE STILL STEALING OUR LAND!
http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/fall98/still_stealing.htm
Post by: wolfbait on February 23, 2017, 12:06:01 PM
County may sue to stop grizzly restoration
Dan WheatCapital Press
Published on March 6, 2015 9:03AM
Last changed on March 9, 2015 11:23AM
Okanogan County commissioners say they may sue to stop grizzly bear restoration in the North Cascades. Chelan County commissioners also oppose the idea put forth by federal and state agencies.
Dan Wheat/Capital Press Monte and Judy Olson, East Wenatchee, at right, listen to Hilary Cooley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service talk about grizzlies at the agency open house in Wenatchee, Wash., March 5.
Buy this photo
Dan Wheat/Capital Press Karen Taylor-Goodrich, superintendent of North Cascades National Park Service Complex, left, talks with Chelan County Commissioner Doug England at grizzly bear recovery open house in Wenatchee, Wash., March 5.
Buy this photo
Dan Wheat/Capital Press Chris Servheen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator, Missoula, Mont., at Wenatchee, Wash., grizzly recovery open house, March 5.
OKANOGAN, Wash. — Okanogan County commissioners are exploring the possibility of a lawsuit to prevent the U.S. Department of Interior from restoring grizzly bears to the North Cascades.
“We think we have uncovered enough of where they did not follow procedure and process. They’re no different than their commander in D.C. running rogue with his pencil and phone. Yes, Obama,” said Jim DeTro, Okanogan County commissioner.
The county was talking to state legislators in Olympia about its options after the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held open houses in Winthrop on March 3 and in Okanogan on March 4 to help them determine whether to take an active role in grizzly restoration. It could include moving grizzlies into the North Cascades from other places in the U.S. and Canada.
Commissioners strongly oppose restoration and say a majority of county residents do. Ranchers, back country horsemen, ATV users, hobby farmers and rural residents don’t want another apex predator to worry about, DeTro said.
About 100 people attended the open house in Okanogan, he said.
“It’s a very, very disgruntled public. They’re not happy with the process. It was set up so you really couldn’t comment. It’s divide and conquer. They diffuse the situation as best they can so they can check the box when they go back to wherever they go and say, ‘Yes we had a meeting in Okanogan County,’” DeTro said.
There was no general forum for oral presentations by federal employees or public comment. Instead, multiple stations were set up where people could get information and interact with state and federal agency employees and then put written comments in a box.
“Dal Dagnon (a Tonasket rancher) took a mic and gave them a pretty good talking to,” DeTro said.
“These people shove this stuff at Okanogan County as a poster child and target Okanogan County for everything they can think of and Okanogan County is fed up,” he said.
“What the hell is the NPS doing taking comments on grizzly recovery? These agencies are in bed with or have imbedded greenies and are de facto fundraising for the greenies,” DeTro said, explaining federal efforts draw attention to the issue and helps environmentalists raise money.
The federal effort is an end run to try to accomplish what couldn’t be accomplished through the state in the past, he said.
A March 5 open house in Wenatchee was the same format with no oral presentations or comments. A couple dozen people attended.
This is the scoping phase from which alternative plans will be developed with a final decision on whether to actively pursue restoration made jointly by NPS and USFWS in three years, said Ann Froschauer, USFWS spokeswoman.
While grizzlies are more plentiful in other parts of Canada and the U.S., a small population lives on the Canadian side of the North Cascades and ventures into Washington state, although there have been no confirmed sightings in Washington since 1996, said Chris Servheen, USFWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator from Missoula, Mont.
“What we would like to do is improve their status, focusing on remote areas of the Pasayten Wilderness and North Cascades National Park,” he said.
The agencies want to keep them in remote areas and bears who endanger people or livestock would be relocated and if they re-offend a second time, destroyed, Servheen said. Problem bears from other areas “absolutely” would not be brought into the North Cascades, he said.
The North Cascades ecosystem is about 10,000 square miles and could safely handle 200 bears, he said. The Yellowstone ecosystem is about the same size and has 1,000 grizzlies that largely stay away from people, he said.
But Doug England, a Chelan County commissioner, said it will be difficult for the same area to be used by grizzlies and hikers.
“We are part of their food chain,” England said. “Hikers and sleeping bags are the soft tacos of the grizzly world.”
Chelan County commissioners sent a letter of opposition to the agencies, he said. It was interesting, he said, to see state Fish and Wildlife personnel at the meeting when state law prevents the state from spending money on grizzly bear recovery.
Any lawsuit likely would boil down to whether the state overrides the federal government in recovery jurisdiction, he said.
Evidence grizzlies lived in Washington is all anecdotal, not historical data, he said.
“This is serious in Stehekin. These are areas we hike with our grandchildren,” he said, adding the concerns of people whose lives and livelihoods will be impacted should carry more weight than those who don’t.
Open houses were set for Cle Elum March 9, Seattle March 10 and Bellingham March 11. Comments will be received through March 26 at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/NCEG.
"Chelan County commissioners sent a letter of opposition to the agencies, he said. It was interesting, he said, to see state Fish and Wildlife personnel at the meeting when state law prevents the state from spending money on grizzly bear recovery."
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Post by: Tbar on February 23, 2017, 12:14:51 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on February 23, 2017, 06:39:32 PM
That is false. One was photographed near Cascade Pass in October 2010.
While grizzlies are more plentiful in other parts of Canada and the U.S., a small population lives on the Canadian side of the North Cascades and ventures into Washington state, although there have been no confirmed sightings in Washington since 1996, said Chris Servheen, USFWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator from Missoula, Mont.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
Quote
Problem bears from other areas “absolutely” would not be brought into the North Cascades, he said.Oh, no "problem bears." That's lovely. Only the sweet, snuggly ones will be introduced.
Post by: SWHUNTER on February 23, 2017, 06:54:21 PM
That is false. One was photographed near Cascade Pass in October 2010.
While grizzlies are more plentiful in other parts of Canada and the U.S., a small population lives on the Canadian side of the North Cascades and ventures into Washington state, although there have been no confirmed sightings in Washington since 1996, said Chris Servheen, USFWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator from Missoula, Mont.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/QuoteProblem bears from other areas “absolutely” would not be brought into the North Cascades, he said.Oh, no "problem bears." That's lovely. Only the sweet, snuggly ones will be introduced.
I think I've posted it twice on this site, but pretty sure that's not a grizzly. Pics from the same area same time of year with a huge hump backed black bear showed up online on nwhikers. Easy to call that a griz with just a skyline shot like that.
Maybe jackelope could find the old thread with the pics. I'm not sure where it is.
Post by: SWHUNTER on February 23, 2017, 06:58:31 PM
Go Zags!
Post by: SWHUNTER on February 23, 2017, 07:32:19 PM
Here you go fish vacuum. Page 3 of this thread. I'm guessing that's a black bear.
Post by: Colorado Kid on February 24, 2017, 10:26:38 AM
2)The safety factor for backwood hikers, hunters, etc. should be considered. There is a lot of use on the Pacific Crest Trail. In 2010/2011 around the Yellowstone recreation area, two hikers were killed. There were two attacks in developed areas(where garbage and food is highly controlled) and thirty four attacks in back country areas in the Yellowstone recovery area during that time. The EIS talks about educating the public about garbage containment to lesson the risk of bear confrontations, but most of the NCE is wilderness and high country. Will this then lead to more restrictions and rules for enjoying the backcountry? Where is the data detailing encounters hunters have experienced being mauled included in the EIS. Only a part of the NCE is National Park, so hunting is allowed in most of the area. We need to protect what public lands we still have access to hunt on.
3)The reimbursement of lost livestock is questionable depending on Washington's stance, too. The federal government doesn't from what I've read have any current programs that would compensate loss, so it would be up to the state?
4)Another concern is the addition of another apex predator. The grizzly needs a large territory to survive. The NCE probably can't sustain grizzilies like the Yellowstone ecosystem without migrating herds, plentiful white pine stands, and high mountain moths which live under rocks to eat. If these reintroduced grizzilies roam out of the NCE, and into areas where the wolf population has already exploded, what then? Where are the studies showing the numbers of moose, deer, elk, and even the woodland caribou over in the northeastern part of the state, and how will this impact those populations? What will happen to our black bear population when they have to compete for a limited food source? How will this in turn impact how WSFW sets the hunting regulations? Will we become like the state of Nevada, where you have to apply to even hunt?
5)When making decisions on which option will be put in place, have all the different user groups been considered. The EIS touts an increase in tourism, yet how can that be? The NCE is mostly devoid of roads, so to safely view grizzilies like they do in Yellowstone isn't possible. Not too many people would want to view a grizzly bear close up in the wild on a hiking trail, or during a big game hunt.
Would the FWA close off recovery areas to recreation during the experimental periods?
6)Has the FWA considered why the grizzy population hasn't naturally filtered in in larger numbers. Will the relocated bears leave for better pastures? In conclusion, it is not only important for our state representatives to hear our comments, but our federal as well. Thanks for giving the time to read this, and hopefully spread the word please comment. :)
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2017, 10:42:00 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2017, 10:44:15 AM
Post by: fish vacuum on February 24, 2017, 07:22:27 PM
http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991996&postdays=0Page 3 of your link has someone thinking they got pics of the same bear. They posted the response they got from fish and wildlife. That response said the bear in the Seattle Times was a class 1 grizzly sighting based on the opinions of 14 out of 15 experts on their panel.
Here you go fish vacuum. Page 3 of this thread. I'm guessing that's a black bear.
"leave the Sebille sighting as a class 1 grizzly bear sighting. It was a very spirited two-hour discussion but in the end, application of the scientific process carried the day."
Post by: fish vacuum on February 24, 2017, 07:25:28 PM
http://skagit.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2483&meta_id=130263
Post by: Southpole on February 25, 2017, 09:47:14 AM
Post by: wolfbait on February 25, 2017, 10:29:22 AM
Everyone that spoke to support the recovery keep saying the 80-90 percent of the public supports it, they apparently didn't ask people that would be directly affected. Like one gentleman said, all the people that want it are from the cities or even other countries, sounds fair :rolleyes:
Sounds like WDFW's wolf introduction, same BS just a different critter.....
Post by: Southpole on February 25, 2017, 12:03:23 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on February 25, 2017, 12:21:57 PM
Everyone that spoke to support the recovery keep saying the 80-90 percent of the public supports it, they apparently didn't ask people that would be directly affected. Like one gentleman said, all the people that want it are from the cities or even other countries, sounds fair :rolleyes:Exactly.
Post by: Special T on February 25, 2017, 01:10:19 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 25, 2017, 01:12:41 PM
Dec 4, 2011
Officials debate way forward on grizzly bear management
"The Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle and Lolo national forests last week released a new grizzly access plan for the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly areas in response to another long-simmering court case. The plan may close more than 100 miles of backcountry roads over the next eight years, and could face new legal challenges from off-highway vehicle users who want to maintain their own access".
http://missoulian.com/news/local/officials-debate-way-forward-on-grizzly-bear-management/article_4aae18ae-1e08-11e1-9852-001871e3ce6c.html
Post by: Southpole on February 25, 2017, 01:17:25 PM
That percentage of support sure doesn't represent the local population in Skagit county.You ignorant Skagit folks just need to be "educated" about grizzlies don't ya know.
Post by: Special T on February 25, 2017, 02:21:29 PM
Post by: konradcountry on February 25, 2017, 05:21:23 PM
Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.
This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.
Post by: Tbar on February 25, 2017, 05:22:41 PM
Post by: SpurInSpokane on February 25, 2017, 05:46:08 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 25, 2017, 06:08:08 PM
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-grizzly-bears-becoming-unbearable
"While these run-ins are a real danger to people, however, they're still far more fatal to bears. At least 42 GYE grizzlies were killed by people in 2010, up from 24 in 2009 and 37 in 2008 (the 2000-'07 average was 16 per year). Still, there are now 600 grizzlies in the area — plus a few hundred more across the U.S. Northwest, and 50,000 in Alaska and Canada — so extinction clearly isn't imminent. In fact, grizzlies came off the U.S. endangered species list in 2007, with officials citing a tripled population since 1975. But they went back on the list two years later, after a federal judge ruled the FWS had downplayed its own studies suggesting the bears may still be at risk. Old threats like hunting and logging are gone, but the judge cited a new, more subtle scourge: food shortages, many of which could worsen with global warming."
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Post by: Humptulips on February 26, 2017, 08:23:37 PM
The real thing you are fighting is they have the money appropriated and by God they are going to spend it. Whatever it takes to justify their actions will get used.
Paychecks are at stake.
Post by: Tbar on February 26, 2017, 08:39:43 PM
I don't see any "no action alternative" in their plans.I agree! I think the only hope is a robust 10j plan but doubt they would settle for that. Between all the grizzly activists and a calculated strategy they hold a strong advantage. The hunting community lacks support and numbers in these settings. Get involved and submit comments to whatever alternative you support.
The real thing you are fighting is they have the money appropriated and by God they are going to spend it. Whatever it takes to justify their actions will get used.
Paychecks are at stake.
Post by: buglebrush on February 27, 2017, 09:46:12 AM
What is the justification for them being threatened? Someone needs to ask that question.
Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.
This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.
It's all about power and closing down all access. It's not even just about closing hunting although that will come too. This country has lost its mind!
Post by: Southpole on February 27, 2017, 10:12:58 AM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:What is the justification for them being threatened? Someone needs to ask that question.
Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.
This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.
It's all about power and closing down all access. It's not even just about closing hunting although that will come too. This country has lost its mind!
Post by: wolfbait on February 27, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:What is the justification for them being threatened? Someone needs to ask that question.
Their population has increased since 1975. There are 30k of them in Alaska and 25k in Canada.
This is the same thing they did with the wolf in Idaho. They call the species threatened while ignoring Alaska and Canada.
It's all about power and closing down all access. It's not even just about closing hunting although that will come too. This country has lost its mind!
:yeah:
I have noticed that many pro-wolf people are not pro-grizzly, maybe they have it figured that it won't be just the ranchers and ungulates that will do the suffering etc..
Post by: Special T on February 27, 2017, 03:58:56 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 28, 2017, 08:37:18 AM
Post by: Colorado Kid on February 28, 2017, 09:05:50 AM
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on February 28, 2017, 09:55:47 AM
In June 2016, the Wenatchee World published an article titled; Enviro Group: Poll finds support for grizzly recovery. In the article it states that 600 registered voters were surveyed from 39 counties. How does that represent 80 to 90 percent of Washington's population?
The summary sheet for that poll is available here: http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf (http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf)
It certainly has it's flaws and oversights, notably sampling statewide (both urban and rural counties) but not oversampling the seven counties that specifically make up the North Cascades. But as someone who has conducted focus groups and polling, I'd say it is statistically solid, even if the degree of support it indicates is dubious.
I for one support grizzly bear restoration AND management in the North Cascades. This is a native species who's population is struggling, isolated and extremly unlikely to recover naturally at this point. As sportsmen and conservationists, I believe we have an obligation to support the recovery of native species, be they elk or bears. God created them both, who are we to pick one over the other when we were the direct cause of their decline?
I do most of my hunting around Leavenworth and on the west side of the Methow Valley, and that area is already bear country. We already carry spray and usually a large sidearm, keep a clean camp, consider our gutpile and meat management, etc. 5-25 grizz over the next several decades, in an area where the trails, roads and access policies have already been officially managed for grizzlies since the North Cascades was designated a federal Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in 1991 is not going to have a significant affect on my backcountry pursuits, those of my family, or our property in the area.
I was especially pleased to see the option for a 10(j), or Designated Experimental Population, included in the draft grizzly restoration proposals. Even more because some of the diehard enviro groups are pissed about that potential policy. This exemption from the usual requirements of the ESA would give wildlife managers, and landowners, significant flexibility to move bears that wander out of wilderness areas, or take lethal action to resolve conflicts. With this type of proper management, ideally eventually at the state level, I have no problem with grizzly recovery in our region.
Post by: thatdamguy on February 28, 2017, 10:19:26 AM
http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/episode-055-bear-biologist-frank-vanmanen/
Here is a link to the Meat Eater podcast with Steven Rinella, it has one of the top bear biologist on this episodes and they talk about current bear populations and they mention the Cascades area re-introduction. Definitely worth listening to if you have time, I personally am against this re-introduction. Look at how much of a disaster our wolves re-introduction has been, I believe this will lead to complete shutdowns of some of the area's public land hunting.
Post by: smittyJ on March 06, 2017, 07:42:16 AM
In June 2016, the Wenatchee World published an article titled; Enviro Group: Poll finds support for grizzly recovery. In the article it states that 600 registered voters were surveyed from 39 counties. How does that represent 80 to 90 percent of Washington's population?
The summary sheet for that poll is available here: http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf (http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf)
It certainly has it's flaws and oversights, notably sampling statewide (both urban and rural counties) but not oversampling the seven counties that specifically make up the North Cascades. But as someone who has conducted focus groups and polling, I'd say it is statistically solid, even if the degree of support it indicates is dubious.
I for one support grizzly bear restoration AND management in the North Cascades. This is a native species who's population is struggling, isolated and extremly unlikely to recover naturally at this point. As sportsmen and conservationists, I believe we have an obligation to support the recovery of native species, be they elk or bears. God created them both, who are we to pick one over the other when we were the direct cause of their decline?
I do most of my hunting around Leavenworth and on the west side of the Methow Valley, and that area is already bear country. We already carry spray and usually a large sidearm, keep a clean camp, consider our gutpile and meat management, etc. 5-25 grizz over the next several decades, in an area where the trails, roads and access policies have already been officially managed for grizzlies since the North Cascades was designated a federal Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in 1991 is not going to have a significant affect on my backcountry pursuits, those of my family, or our property in the area.
I was especially pleased to see the option for a 10(j), or Designated Experimental Population, included in the draft grizzly restoration proposals. Even more because some of the diehard enviro groups are pissed about that potential policy. This exemption from the usual requirements of the ESA would give wildlife managers, and landowners, significant flexibility to move bears that wander out of wilderness areas, or take lethal action to resolve conflicts. With this type of proper management, ideally eventually at the state level, I have no problem with grizzly recovery in our region.
Since Grizzlies have been recorded from Canada to Mt Rainier over the years, My question would be, Why are they struggling? If the habitat has not supported them in the past what good is the re-introduction?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 06, 2017, 08:27:24 AM
http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/episode-055-bear-biologist-frank-vanmanen/
He sounds just like Tony Beets from "Gold Rush" without as much &*&&%$%$^ swearing.
Post by: Special T on March 06, 2017, 08:39:28 AM
You might be unaware of this but the introduction of wolves was an experimental population. The same reasoning was given then, just as it is now. It's a line of B'S and history has already shown how this will work out.In June 2016, the Wenatchee World published an article titled; Enviro Group: Poll finds support for grizzly recovery. In the article it states that 600 registered voters were surveyed from 39 counties. How does that represent 80 to 90 percent of Washington's population?
The summary sheet for that poll is available here: http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf (http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/polling-finds-washington-voters-support-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-north-cascades.pdf)
It certainly has it's flaws and oversights, notably sampling statewide (both urban and rural counties) but not oversampling the seven counties that specifically make up the North Cascades. But as someone who has conducted focus groups and polling, I'd say it is statistically solid, even if the degree of support it indicates is dubious.
I for one support grizzly bear restoration AND management in the North Cascades. This is a native species who's population is struggling, isolated and extremly unlikely to recover naturally at this point. As sportsmen and conservationists, I believe we have an obligation to support the recovery of native species, be they elk or bears. God created them both, who are we to pick one over the other when we were the direct cause of their decline?
I do most of my hunting around Leavenworth and on the west side of the Methow Valley, and that area is already bear country. We already carry spray and usually a large sidearm, keep a clean camp, consider our gutpile and meat management, etc. 5-25 grizz over the next several decades, in an area where the trails, roads and access policies have already been officially managed for grizzlies since the North Cascades was designated a federal Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in 1991 is not going to have a significant affect on my backcountry pursuits, those of my family, or our property in the area.
I was especially pleased to see the option for a 10(j), or Designated Experimental Population, included in the draft grizzly restoration proposals. Even more because some of the diehard enviro groups are pissed about that potential policy. This exemption from the usual requirements of the ESA would give wildlife managers, and landowners, significant flexibility to move bears that wander out of wilderness areas, or take lethal action to resolve conflicts. With this type of proper management, ideally eventually at the state level, I have no problem with grizzly recovery in our region.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 06, 2017, 09:46:31 AM
This model has caught on with the media and was an episode on NatGeo. I'd think that the authors and scientists of the study are much less certain of the veracity of this model than the producers of NatGeo Wild are.
I would be happy to see every lake trout in the west gone, but the biologist like the populations in Yellowstone's Lewis lake as a genetically pure source for repairing the Great Lakes.
Post by: Romulus1297 on March 09, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 25, 2017, 07:43:37 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grizzly-bc-1.4039252
Grizzly attack leaves B.C. forestry worker with significant injuries
Conservation service doesn't know what sparked attack
Post by: trophyhunt on March 25, 2017, 08:06:55 AM
Post by: Southpole on March 25, 2017, 09:45:18 AM
Post by: hunter_sean08 on March 25, 2017, 10:13:53 AM
Post by: HighlandLofts on March 25, 2017, 11:23:26 PM
Post by: wolfbait on April 03, 2017, 09:29:24 AM
http://www.therepublic.com/2017/04/02/us-grizzly-bears/
Post by: cougforester on April 03, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
The more I think about the answer he gave and the reasoning behind it, the more sense it makes. :tinfoil:
Post by: smittyJ on April 05, 2017, 07:25:16 AM
I was at the state Society of American Foresters and The Wildlife Society convention last weekend, and there was a 30 minute discussion about the reintroduction of grizz. At the end of the program, I asked the presenter "How was the desired number of grizzlies (200)" determined?" He gave an answer basically saying that studies have shown carrying capacity to be between 250-350, so they aimed for 200 as a sort of "palatable number". I started thinking about that more after the presentation, and my tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory is that they are aiming for this number to guarantee the grizz never reach population numbers to begin the process of being delisted and revert back to state management.
The more I think about the answer he gave and the reasoning behind it, the more sense it makes. :tinfoil:
I would ask, If the area can sustain 350 bears and there have been bears confirmed from the Canada border to Mt Rainier why have they not multiplied over the years?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 05, 2017, 07:48:38 AM
Post by: SpurInSpokane on April 05, 2017, 08:58:28 AM
Given the size of the area in the Northern Cascades range that we're mostly talking about, when the number of grizzlies is below a certain amount, the population will decline, even if left alone. Basically, there's not enough breeding and survival to make up for losses over time.
That number, based on a report I read and linked earlier in this thread, is somewhere around 150-200 for the Northern Cascades.
Less than that, and left alone, the grizzly population in the Northern Cascades will hit zero.
If that's also close to the carrying capacity (not an argument I'm making, but based on the reply just above), the population won't be able to grow much beyond that number anyway.
So the reason they're looking at supplementing is that the current population levels are below the densities required to grow, and the reason they haven't grown over the years is that, yes, they're below carrying capacity, but they're also below growth density.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 05, 2017, 09:06:02 AM
I was at the state Society of American Foresters and The Wildlife Society convention last weekend, and there was a 30 minute discussion about the reintroduction of grizz. At the end of the program, I asked the presenter "How was the desired number of grizzlies (200)" determined?" He gave an answer basically saying that studies have shown carrying capacity to be between 250-350, so they aimed for 200 as a sort of "palatable number". I started thinking about that more after the presentation, and my tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory is that they are aiming for this number to guarantee the grizz never reach population numbers to begin the process of being delisted and revert back to state management.It seems unlikely that the WDFW and the State of WA will ever allow management of either grizzlies or wolves, regardless of population levels.
The more I think about the answer he gave and the reasoning behind it, the more sense it makes. :tinfoil:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 05, 2017, 09:24:58 AM
Post by: Southpole on April 05, 2017, 12:17:44 PM
The issue is the NCNP is an area that is not conducive to sustain a grizzly population of that magnitude. Thus they will have to venture out and before the state and NCNP(not that they will be hunted in the park) will EVER allow a hunting season for grizzlies to occur the population will be way out of control outside the park. This is what the conservationist groups are banking on so they can justify removal of hunting seasons. Also the deer, elk and other animals that support the bears and wolves survival will be below the population to do so. It's not like man hunted out the grizzly population there its because that area does not support their growth.:yeah: someone here gets it!
Post by: wolfbait on April 05, 2017, 02:40:06 PM
http://www.wylr.net/livestock/229-sheep/2158-grizzly-mauls-sheepherder-kills-dogs-and-sheep
Post by: KFhunter on May 16, 2017, 09:32:58 PM
It never ends :bash:
I never seen a lynx in the wedge, how can it be a "core area" ?? I seen a few in Canada up higher but never in the wedge, not even tracks.
Here's the really bad news
Quote
One of the key aspects of grizzly bear recovery is human access management.
Post by: jasnt on May 17, 2017, 02:44:54 AM
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd542099.pdf😡 They will just keep taking and taking!
It never ends :bash:
I never seen a lynx in the wedge, how can it be a "core area" ?? I seen a few in Canada up higher but never in the wedge, not even tracks.
Here's the really bad newsQuoteOne of the key aspects of grizzly bear recovery is human access management.
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on May 17, 2017, 01:44:53 PM
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd542099.pdf
It never ends :bash:
Don't buy the BS. No grizzly "reintroduction" is occurring on the Colville National Forest.
A small grizzly bear population persists in the Selkirks portion, with several grizzlies also documented sporadically to the west in the Wedge ("There are currently believed to be at least 70-80 grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Zone with numbers approximately equally divided between the Canadian and U.S. portions of the ecosystems." - http://igbconline.org/selkirkcabinet-yaak/).
The USFS and other agencies are required by law to manage habitat on the Forest for native wildlife that persist there, including threatened and endangered species such as lynx and grizzlies, for whom recovery plans of varying sorts must be in place. Acknowledging that while updating the CNF Forest Plan is standard operating procedure.
I can certainly understand folks having concerns around restoring a functioning grizzly bear population in the North Cascades. But that's not at all what's occurring on the Colville. Managing wild public lands with the needs of all the native species occupying the land in mind, while responsibly balancing such habitat conservation with the multi-use mandate of areas like National Forests, that's entirely consistent with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and our nation's wildlife laws.
Post by: buglebrush on May 17, 2017, 02:32:20 PM
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd542099.pdf
It never ends :bash:
Don't buy the BS. No grizzly "reintroduction" is occurring on the Colville National Forest.
A small grizzly bear population persists in the Selkirks portion, with several grizzlies also documented sporadically to the west in the Wedge ("There are currently believed to be at least 70-80 grizzly bears in the Selkirk Recovery Zone with numbers approximately equally divided between the Canadian and U.S. portions of the ecosystems." - http://igbconline.org/selkirkcabinet-yaak/).
The USFS and other agencies are required by law to manage habitat on the Forest for native wildlife that persist there, including threatened and endangered species such as lynx and grizzlies, for whom recovery plans of varying sorts must be in place. Acknowledging that while updating the CNF Forest Plan is standard operating procedure.
I can certainly understand folks having concerns around restoring a functioning grizzly bear population in the North Cascades. But that's not at all what's occurring on the Colville. Managing wild public lands with the needs of all the native species occupying the land in mind, while responsibly balancing such habitat conservation with the multi-use mandate of areas like National Forests, that's entirely consistent with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and our nation's wildlife laws.
Says the man who doesn't live here...
The reason they don't allow any spring bear season in 113 is solely because of the Grizzlies. That is straight from WDFW. Even though the neighboring unit in Idaho has an OTC, 2 month long spring bear season and it sure hasn't hurt the Grizzly population at all. Endangered "Native" species are simply a strong arm tactic to shut down access and opportunity. :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on May 17, 2017, 02:36:43 PM
Why shut down/gate roads (which makes everyone angry) when you can just let them washout and not repair them?
Post by: wolfbait on May 17, 2017, 06:15:23 PM
people management.
Why shut down/gate roads (which makes everyone angry) when you can just let them washout and not repair them?
Grizzly bear habitat could be more permanent, with a larger percentage of land off limits to people etc..
Post by: STARVATION on May 20, 2017, 07:15:52 AM
Post by: HighlandLofts on May 20, 2017, 07:27:49 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 20, 2017, 01:10:53 PM