U.S. drafts plan to bring grizzly bears back to Washington’s North Cascades (WAPO)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim F. said:
Unfortunately dissenting comments likely won't be heeded, particularly those from folks who live/farm/ranch in the adjacent areas and who stand to be adversely impacted by the reintroduction. I suspect that the majority of those supporting reintroduction as well as the decision-makers don"t live anywhere near the Northern Cascades and won't have any skin in the game if/when things go south. But then again, the reintroduced Wolves didn't pose any issues and they stayed right where they were released . . .
Click to expand...
The WDFW 25-Year Strategic Plan to transition the state away from game harvest - consumption to a giant petting zoo probably won't help.
 
_WW_ said:
This is all very simple. All we have to do is look to Yellowstone and what happens there. We just have to advertise where the bears are and the tourons will line up to...er..."feed" the bears.

Some of societies idiots social media influencers will be removed from the gene pool and the bears will be well fed.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya.
 
Last edited:
This region of the North Cascades is so rugged and remote that the current population is rarely seen or documented. All those shaking in their boots can relax, it is highly unlikely they will ever encounter a grizzly, as they will never make it that far into the wild to ever encounter a Grizzly!
 
Paige said:
This region of the North Cascades is so rugged and remote that the current population is rarely seen or documented. All those shaking in their boots can relax, it is highly unlikely they will ever encounter a grizzly, as they will never make it that far into the wild to ever encounter a Grizzly!
Click to expand...
Go up to Colchuck Lake on a Saturday and let me know how many miles from the actual trail head you have to park 🤣

Again why do we need the feds to stock something against state law that has had 50 plus years to populate on it's own?
 
Jake Watrous said:
I say go for it. More dangerous? Maybe. But we’ve sanded too many corners and padded too many edges. They’ve got signs up that tell people not to fall off of cliffs or hold their children over edges.

Part of the appeal of nature—true nature—is that it’s an edge. Hard to truly respect something that's been lobotomized and pacified.

Deer aren't Bambi, wolves aren't lapdogs, and a grizzly isn't Yogi. It's past time the indoorsy crowd re-learned that.
Click to expand...

I want bears and wolves that specialise in the predation of influencers. Especially sporting influencers. I mean they should eat the tick-tock species as well as to not to share the fate of the resident orcas but let's start with the fishing influencers. They are already in the habitat and causing harm.
 
Billy said:
Go up to Colchuck Lake on a Saturday and let me know how many miles from the actual trail head you have to park 🤣
Click to expand...
The trailhead to Colchuck is as representative of the North Cascades, as Soap Lake girls are representative of women.
😁
 
Billy said:
Go up to Colchuck Lake on a Saturday and let me know how many miles from the actual trail head you have to park 🤣

Again why do we need the feds to stock something against state law that has had 50 plus years to populate on it's own?
Click to expand...
During those 50 years bears have met with great opposition from many different fronts disallowing their efforts to naturally populate.
 
Flymph said:
During those 50 years bears have met with great opposition from many different fronts disallowing their efforts to naturally populate.
Click to expand...
I'll bite, what are the things that have disallowed them to repopulate, that are likely to change? I ask generally, I'm pretty pro predator in general but I agree with the notion that there isnt a lot to eat in the north cascades for Grizzlies. Salmon runs dont make the high country and even if they did, would it be a viable source of food for bears with runs as they are?

What I know about bears is they are really really good at finding food. If there is food for bears, bears find it. I think the lack of grizzlies in the area says a lot about its ability to support grizzlies.
 
Gee...somehow people still recreate outdoors in AK, BC, and the YT without being paralyzed with a pantshitting fear of bears, cougars, coyotes, otters, wolves and moose.

Goddamn highways are far more fearsome.. ...don't know a single person harmed by any wild animals in my 60+ years rambling about the sticks, though I have many friends, acquaintances, and relatives that met their ends in vehicle accidents (including my old man in 1955).

As for stock losses to predators....make compensation easy-peasy for those affected and I suspect we'd see ranchers become strong supporters of reintroductions.
 
Last edited:
Recently, I keep hearing people say that black bears are more dangerous than grizzlies.

“If a grizzly attacks you, you’re in its way. If a black bear attacks you, you’re in its stomach.”

I’ve inferred that black bears are less likely to attack you, but you’re screwed if they do. Is that how it works?
 
Last edited:
Paige said:
This region of the North Cascades is so rugged and remote that the current population is rarely seen or documented. All those shaking in their boots can relax, it is highly unlikely they will ever encounter a grizzly, as they will never make it that far into the wild to ever encounter a Grizzly!
Click to expand...
The map I posted earlier (and below) shows the North Cascades Grizzly Recovery Zone does actually cover the entire North and Central Cascades to I90. The map also shows all of the Grizzly Recovery Zones except Bitterroot have had outward migration.
While I agree with @Salmo_g
Salmo_g said:
If the habitat were suitable, there would already be more bears there. Given that no one's killed one since 1967, they've had 56 years to produce some offspring. I think the few grizzlys in the NC are BC animals that wander south into WA and then return to a more productive home range in BC.
Click to expand...
and non-native bears are brought into the NCE (at least currently against state law) to provide a (petting zoo?) abundance the Feds are satisfied with, perhaps the bios will have enough foresight to collar the first few and wait to see if the bears don't appreciate their temporary vacation in the banana belt and head north.

Billy said:
I picked a trail head in the Grizzly recovery zone....

I did pick the most crowded but calling the North Cascades some remote vast area is comical...
Click to expand...
^^^^ This
If in the Fed's zeal the number and location of bear releases expands to achieve abundance (a hatcheries mindset) throughout the NCE the potential for conflicts with humans is much greater in WA with the disproportionate size of the NCE with the WA population size and distribution in comparison to the other Recovery Zones.
1699299654046.png
 
Jim F. said:
I wonder why there aren't more than a "few" Grizzlies in the Northern Cascades. Could it be that a few is all the area will support?
Click to expand...

We should probably dump a bunch of money into a "conservation" program to find out. When we need more we'll spend more.
 
Billy said:
Yeah that's why we have something like 30 thousand black bears in this state....
Click to expand...

Habitat preferred by Black bears is more common than habitat conducive to Grizzly in this state, although the 2 do overlap somewhat. Probably why there's more Black bears...Evidently Grizzly tend to prefer areas of white bark pine in the North Cascades from what I read, and those mid-seral forests are not a large percentage of the area up there. Meanwhile the montane forests preferred by black bears are much more prevalent.

Billy said:
I picked a trail head in the Grizzly recovery zone....

I did pick the most crowded but calling the North Cascades some remote vast area is comical...
Click to expand...
Well seems like much of the park is remote, half a million acres in the park alone, then add in the surrounding national forest lands, the 2 NRA'S, the BC aspect, and so I'd say there's a lot of remote areas in that part of the state.
The times I've hiked and backpacked up in that area (several 10 day trips backpacking, and a couple dozen or so day trips, plus probably 15 or so weekend backpacking trips) it seemed pretty undeveloped, never saw any Starbucks, couches and phone service is pretty sparse I would guess... so guessing most folks are safe.

Go Bison !!!
Go Grizzly !!!
Go Cougars !!!

:)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top