Post by: mcrawfordaf on September 29, 2023, 10:26:47 AM
During the 45-day comment period, the agencies will gather public input to develop their final strategy on grizzly reintroduction in north-central Washington. Public comments can now be submitted here:https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=132104 (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=132104)"
Under alternative A (no-action alternative), current management would continue, and the proposed
restoration population goal of 200 grizzly bears in the US portion of the NCE would not be achieved
because no grizzly bear population is currently present in the NCE, and grizzly bears are not expected to
recover to a sustainable population in the NCE on their own.
Alternative B would release up to 7 grizzly bears per year for 5 to 10 years until an initial population of
25 grizzly bears in the US portion of the NCE is reached. In subsequent years, additional bears could be
released as needed to help meet restoration objectives. Once an initial population of 25 grizzly bears is
reached, the restoration population goal of 200 bears in the NCE would likely be achieved in
approximately 60 to 100 years. Grizzly bears released into the NCE would benefit in the long term from
the large block of high-quality habitat that would help further the conservation of the species. The release
of grizzly bears into the NCE would require their capture and transport from other areas, and some level
of mortality may occur. However, every effort would be taken to minimize capture and transport-related
mortalities. The North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team (2004) estimates that approximately 2% of
the grizzly bear population in the NCE would be lost to human-caused mortality each year, including
mortalities associated with restoration activities. Although the removal of grizzly bears from source
populations in interior British Columbia, Montana, or Wyoming would effectively count as mortality to
those populations, the viability of source populations would not be affected. Overall, alternative B would
result in beneficial impacts on grizzly bears by restoring them to areas of high-quality habitat and
furthering conservation of the species.
Alternative C differs from alternative B only in the implementation of an ESA section 10(j) designation
for grizzly bears. Impacts on grizzly bears from capture, release, and monitoring, as well as impacts on
source populations would be the same as described under alternative B. Under alternative C, there would
be increased options for grizzly bear management, with specific rules applying to the different
management zones, as described in chapter 2. Using the ESA 10(j) designation would provide additional
management flexibility to effectively manage the grizzly bear population in and around the NCE,
including deterrence, preemptive relocation to prevent conflicts, and written authorization for conditioned
lethal take, if necessary. Without management tools to sufficiently address conflicts between grizzly bears
and humans, the escalation of conflict situations is likely to erode social tolerance for grizzly bear
restoration among some groups. Therefore, despite allowing lethal take in limited circumstances, the 10(j)
designation is expected to improve social tolerance of grizzly bears and, in turn, improve the chances of
establishing and maintaining a grizzly bear population in NCE.
Post by: highcountry_hunter on September 29, 2023, 10:55:27 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230929/6b1c91e036679d915732f65cdfdd4c4f.jpeg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: timberfaller on September 29, 2023, 11:04:10 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-moves-unleash-apex-predator-near-rural-community
Notice WHO is involved? Last paragraph!!! Been telling ya!!
Post by: nwwanderer on September 29, 2023, 11:16:47 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 29, 2023, 11:41:59 AM
This program is a mistake and if it is accepted and grows out of control, causing harm to humans, wildlife populations, and financial security for individuals and industry, those of you who design and implement this strategy need to be held accountable for the negative results."
Post by: timberfaller on September 29, 2023, 11:43:42 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 29, 2023, 12:06:54 PM
Post by: KNOPHISH on September 29, 2023, 12:07:16 PM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on September 29, 2023, 12:40:32 PM
Commented: "Rarely does it work out well to move wildlife into areas where it isn't already flourishing. You guys moved mountain goats into Olympic National Park and what happened? You had to remove or kill them over the last few years at a cost of millions to us taxpayers, mainly due to human-wildlife conflict. There are reasons why the grizzly hasn't flourished in the Northern Cascades and there are plenty of reasons why this would be a dumb idea now. Human-wildlife conflict, degradation of habitat, changes in the stress on ungulate populations, proximity to human-inhabited areas due to migration related to food source, habitat changes, etc. In addition, when you set numbers for restoration goals toward management, you don't account for (or object to) the fact that law suits prevent necessary management once those goals are met, leading to overpopulation and increasing conflict, as has happened in Montana. As a result of your previous actions, the residents of Montana are stuck with an ever-growing population of extremely dangerous apex predators that can't be controlled.
This program is a mistake and if it is accepted and grows out of control, causing harm to humans, wildlife populations, and financial security for individuals and industry, those of you who design and implement this strategy need to be held accountable for the negative results."
Just a point of order and not diminishing your post... But the goats were not introduced by NPS or USF&W staff. They were introduced by sportsmen a decade or more before the Olympics became a park.
Post by: vandeman17 on September 29, 2023, 01:23:53 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 29, 2023, 01:55:24 PM
Commented: "Rarely does it work out well to move wildlife into areas where it isn't already flourishing. You guys moved mountain goats into Olympic National Park and what happened? You had to remove or kill them over the last few years at a cost of millions to us taxpayers, mainly due to human-wildlife conflict. There are reasons why the grizzly hasn't flourished in the Northern Cascades and there are plenty of reasons why this would be a dumb idea now. Human-wildlife conflict, degradation of habitat, changes in the stress on ungulate populations, proximity to human-inhabited areas due to migration related to food source, habitat changes, etc. In addition, when you set numbers for restoration goals toward management, you don't account for (or object to) the fact that law suits prevent necessary management once those goals are met, leading to overpopulation and increasing conflict, as has happened in Montana. As a result of your previous actions, the residents of Montana are stuck with an ever-growing population of extremely dangerous apex predators that can't be controlled.
This program is a mistake and if it is accepted and grows out of control, causing harm to humans, wildlife populations, and financial security for individuals and industry, those of you who design and implement this strategy need to be held accountable for the negative results."
Just a point of order and not diminishing your post... But the goats were not introduced by NPS or USF&W staff. They were introduced by sportsmen a decade or more before the Olympics became a park.
Thanks for setting me straight. Explain what you mean by sportsmen. Was it just some random guys who trapped goats and then released them? This is very interesting.
Post by: GOcougsHunter on September 29, 2023, 02:24:19 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/mountain-goat-relocation-begins-in-olympic-national-park/ I also had the opportunity to help on the removal project and spoke often to park and WDFW officials. But, your original point is simply humans and animals have conflict and it has to be mitigated after the fact and after we learn lessons we should already understand.Commented: "Rarely does it work out well to move wildlife into areas where it isn't already flourishing. You guys moved mountain goats into Olympic National Park and what happened? You had to remove or kill them over the last few years at a cost of millions to us taxpayers, mainly due to human-wildlife conflict. There are reasons why the grizzly hasn't flourished in the Northern Cascades and there are plenty of reasons why this would be a dumb idea now. Human-wildlife conflict, degradation of habitat, changes in the stress on ungulate populations, proximity to human-inhabited areas due to migration related to food source, habitat changes, etc. In addition, when you set numbers for restoration goals toward management, you don't account for (or object to) the fact that law suits prevent necessary management once those goals are met, leading to overpopulation and increasing conflict, as has happened in Montana. As a result of your previous actions, the residents of Montana are stuck with an ever-growing population of extremely dangerous apex predators that can't be controlled.
This program is a mistake and if it is accepted and grows out of control, causing harm to humans, wildlife populations, and financial security for individuals and industry, those of you who design and implement this strategy need to be held accountable for the negative results."
Just a point of order and not diminishing your post... But the goats were not introduced by NPS or USF&W staff. They were introduced by sportsmen a decade or more before the Olympics became a park.
Thanks for setting me straight. Explain what you mean by sportsmen. Was it just some random guys who trapped goats and then released them? This is very interesting.
Post by: timberfaller on September 29, 2023, 02:35:43 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on September 29, 2023, 02:52:48 PM
Is there a way to view comments?
Post by: CarbonHunter on September 29, 2023, 03:17:02 PM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on September 29, 2023, 03:17:19 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the original reason for the enviro's wanted them gone was because they were eating some plant life that was on the Endangered list. And beings that "sportsman" had them put there, they were/are not considered a "native species". Hence their original desire was for them(the goats) to be shot and left lay. That incurred out cry from people, so the alternative was to relocate them at taxpayers expense. The sportsman tried to get a permit hunt going BUT you know what can of worms that stirred up!!Wasn't the enviros... https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/mountain-goat-capture-and-translocation.htm has all the detail. National Parks are set up under the Preservationist model (think John Muir) and introduced species are not part of a preservationist Federal mandate for the NPS. This mandate was put in place by Teddy Roosevelt's administration,
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 29, 2023, 04:59:40 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the original reason for the enviro's wanted them gone was because they were eating some plant life that was on the Endangered list. And beings that "sportsman" had them put there, they were/are not considered a "native species". Hence their original desire was for them(the goats) to be shot and left lay. That incurred out cry from people, so the alternative was to relocate them at taxpayers expense. The sportsman tried to get a permit hunt going BUT you know what can of worms that stirred up!!Wasn't the enviros... https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/mountain-goat-capture-and-translocation.htm has all the detail. National Parks are set up under the Preservationist model (think John Muir) and introduced species are not part of a preservationist Federal mandate for the NPS. This mandate was put in place by Teddy Roosevelt's administration,
Something similar is starting to occur in the TR NP. The question is becoming what is a cultural/historical number versus the environmental damage or hard hooved introduced species
https://www.federaltimes.com/federal-oversight/2023/09/27/national-park-service-seeks-public-input-on-wild-horses/#:~:text=Around%201970%2C%20a%20park%20superintendent,the%20open%2Drange%20ranching%20era.
Post by: BearCreekCookBook on September 29, 2023, 06:37:43 PM
1) The historical population is irrelevant to modern day, we have over 8 million people in this state and thousands of miles of highways.
2) We don’t have the prey populations for the current predators, never mind adding a new apex predator.
3) BC is full of grizzly and they can no longer be hunted, they’ll move in slowly and naturally should the habitat and prey ever be healthy enough to sustain a population.
4) The people of Washington have already resoundingly rejected this proposal, trying to force it down our throats every year is truly pathetic.
I hope the people trying to push this are mauled and eaten slowly by a big nasty boar grizz, it would serve them right.
Post by: RB on September 29, 2023, 10:18:52 PM
The worst part I feel is the wasted tax dollars that will get used to "re-locate" Bears, because my opinion is, they will take problem Bears from Montana and Wyoming and release them here. More tax dollars will be wasted trying to educate the Bear, after it starts to eat livestock, then more will be wasted to bring in a government hunter and finally put it down. Then the cycle will start over. :twocents:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on September 29, 2023, 10:26:18 PM
Have a friend that did high Buck this year near this area they want to put Grizzly. He said the trail, and off trail areas he went had a lot of hikers. One group stopped and talked with him and asked what he was doing, he replied hunting Deer and Bear. What happened next is what is very concerning, they all asked "There are Bears up here?"
The worst part I feel is the wasted tax dollars that will get used to "re-locate" Bears, because my opinion is, they will take problem Bears from Montana and Wyoming and release them here. More tax dollars will be wasted trying to educate the Bear, after it starts to eat livestock, then more will be wasted to bring in a government hunter and finally put it down. Then the cycle will start over. :twocents:
Bunny huggers have not a clue what’s in the forest until they see it.🤣
Post by: SWHUNTER on September 30, 2023, 02:17:45 AM
Send a comment!
Post by: Washington Wapiti on October 01, 2023, 07:42:25 PM
Hell I’m all for it. I think releasing a few on Tiger Summit is a good idea as well. The woods have had an issue with an invasive species know as liberals for decades now. This might be just what we need for them to give the hunters some space and for them to see first hand how dumb their ideas are.
I approve this message :chuckle:
Post by: MADMAX on October 01, 2023, 07:49:20 PM
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/grizzly-bear-attack-canadas-banff-national-park-leaves-two-dead-2023-10-01/
Post by: jackelope on October 01, 2023, 08:06:32 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the original reason for the enviro's wanted them gone was because they were eating some plant life that was on the Endangered list. And beings that "sportsman" had them put there, they were/are not considered a "native species". Hence their original desire was for them(the goats) to be shot and left lay. That incurred out cry from people, so the alternative was to relocate them at taxpayers expense. The sportsman tried to get a permit hunt going BUT you know what can of worms that stirred up!!
An introduced species decimating natural/native plant life.
Special permit hunts came first. Didn’t work.
Aerial net gunning to remove as many as possible and relocate by X date.
Anything left beyond that were shot. Hunters/shooters applied to be teams of shooters to go into the goat areas and shoot as many as they could. They weren’t instructed to leave them lay. They were told they could bring the meat out if they wanted to, but they didn’t have to. They didn’t kill all of them and they’ll presumably repopulate themselves at some point in the future.
Post by: 85yota on October 06, 2023, 11:40:18 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the original reason for the enviro's wanted them gone was because they were eating some plant life that was on the Endangered list. And beings that "sportsman" had them put there, they were/are not considered a "native species". Hence their original desire was for them(the goats) to be shot and left lay. That incurred out cry from people, so the alternative was to relocate them at taxpayers expense. The sportsman tried to get a permit hunt going BUT you know what can of worms that stirred up!!
An introduced species decimating natural/native plant life.
Special permit hunts came first. Didn’t work.
Aerial net gunning to remove as many as possible and relocate by X date.
Anything left beyond that were shot. Hunters/shooters applied to be teams of shooters to go into the goat areas and shoot as many as they could. They weren’t instructed to leave them lay. They were told they could bring the meat out if they wanted to, but they didn’t have to. They didn’t kill all of them and they’ll presumably repopulate themselves at some point in the future.
Now I could be wrong here but when I applied I though I remember them having a limit on how many animals could be removed (actually packed out). And that the area was so steep they warned/ discouraged removal of animals in most instances. Basically your job is to kill goats, we dont want you repelling down ridges or risking injury.There was also the issue of packing animals out in view of the public, ( they may have decided to close trails). What I also do remember was them being super strick on social media usage, posting pictures etc. I'm guessing this is why there very limited info on how the hunt actually went. Gag order of sorts
Post by: timberfaller on October 06, 2023, 11:57:50 AM
Post by: O. Nerka on October 06, 2023, 12:16:14 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the original reason for the enviro's wanted them gone was because they were eating some plant life that was on the Endangered list. And beings that "sportsman" had them put there, they were/are not considered a "native species". Hence their original desire was for them(the goats) to be shot and left lay. That incurred out cry from people, so the alternative was to relocate them at taxpayers expense. The sportsman tried to get a permit hunt going BUT you know what can of worms that stirred up!!
An introduced species decimating natural/native plant life.
Special permit hunts came first. Didn’t work.
Aerial net gunning to remove as many as possible and relocate by X date.
Anything left beyond that were shot. Hunters/shooters applied to be teams of shooters to go into the goat areas and shoot as many as they could. They weren’t instructed to leave them lay. They were told they could bring the meat out if they wanted to, but they didn’t have to. They didn’t kill all of them and they’ll presumably repopulate themselves at some point in the future.
Now I could be wrong here but when I applied I though I remember them having a limit on how many animals could be removed (actually packed out). And that the area was so steep they warned/ discouraged removal of animals in most instances. Basically your job is to kill goats, we dont want you repelling down ridges or risking injury.There was also the issue of packing animals out in view of the public, ( they may have decided to close trails). What I also do remember was them being super strick on social media usage, posting pictures etc. I'm guessing this is why there very limited info on how the hunt actually went. Gag order of sorts
The NPS did emphasize safety but allowed groups to take out as much as they wanted at least in the 2nd "season". There were no trails closed for the volunteer groups and if I remember correctly about 30-35 total goats were killed in all hunts in 2020.
I participated in the hunt and was quite impressed with the NPS biologist that led the effort. She was easy to communicate with, quick to adapt as needed and was happy to share as much goat info as possible.
And for clarification the first step was relocations, then volunteer hunters and after that was the aerial gunning.
Post by: Special T on October 06, 2023, 01:31:14 PM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,207433.0.html
Post by: fireweed on October 06, 2023, 08:26:06 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 06, 2023, 08:49:59 PM
I submitted some comments from the "bear's" perspective, thinking maybe there might be an angle they haven't considered. They are plucking younger, loner bears from high density bear areas (like Yellowstone Ecosystem) and dropping them in the late summer/fall into a totally new habitat. How will they find food? The North Cascade isn't a super rich ecosystem, especially when talking protein on the hoof. What about all the documentaries on Yellowstone bears that tout the unique food sources that bears learn from their mothers (like moths in high mountains, and spawning cutthroat trout). These dropped in bears will be lost, hungry, disoriented and probably especially dangerous to humans. The EIS says they will be released near berries! What if there are no huckleberries that year--it happens all the time. Even the black bears get nasty and brave during bad berry years. The N. Cascades doesn't have the elk calves to chew on like Yellowstone. Transplanting grizzlies is just another Park Service Disaster (like Night of the Grizzlies) just waiting to happen. Check out book Engineering Eden that tell how park service zeal to make everything natural too quickly (by closing the garbage dumps when bears still relied on them for food) lead to the deaths of two people via separate bear mauling on the same night. Google it
Spot on .👍
The berries this year failed due to a drought in the mountains, plus high temps earlier in the spring causing poor berry crop.
Grizzlies already live in the north Cascades, let them repopulate on their own. :twocents:
Post by: wags on October 08, 2023, 01:26:55 PM
If they want to save some time and speed up the process, just relocate them into any river system drainages of western Washington that have decent salmon populations; particularly chum and pinks. Bears do not care if there are human populations present. The city of Anchorage has several dozen brown bears living in the city limits.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 24, 2023, 09:57:51 PM
https://www.yoursourceone.com/columbia_basin/inslee-supports-grizzly-bear-reintroduction-in-north-cascades-amid-local-concerns/article_2d5756aa-88e8-11ee-a3e1-0bf361dc5dc7.html