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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You'll have to excuse Salmo, he's been back on the 'Dark Side' lately, and his usual good manners have taken quite a dive after consorting with the ne'er-do-wells over there.
Next he'll be ranting about chums again, or covid vaccines...both of which should be considered topics not to be discussed in polite company.
;)
 
Yes, really. All those campgrounds and the roads around them are outside the wilderness boundary. Not that the bears care much about boundary lines, but your 4x4 statement caught my eye. I have hiked in a fair number of wilderness areas, and one thing they are more than clear about is no motorized vehicles allowed. The USFS was rebuilding a bridge over the SF Flathead when we floated through in 2018, and the crew told us that every piece came in via pack train of horses and mules. Emergencies are the only exception I know of. During a forest fire in about 2016, the USFS flew hikers and packrafters who could have become trapped out by helicopter.
The Wilderness Act (“Act”) establishes a National Wilderness Preservation System composed of designated “wilderness areas” that are administered in such a manner “as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a). Subject to certain exceptions, the Act bans commercial enterprises, permanent roads, motorized vehicles and equipment, temporary roads, structures, and installations within any wilderness area.” Id. § 1133(c). While the Act generally precludes any development in designated wilderness areas, “existing private rights” are exempt from the ban on commercial activities and access is assured for those with “valid occupancies.” So, there might be a camp, an access road, or an airstrip in a wilderness if the development/inholding predated wilderness designation. Special Use Authorizations are also available, in limited circumstances.

Here's the definition of wilderness at 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c):

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

I've always liked the "untrammeled by man" phrase. Here's a nice essay on the origin and context of that phrase:
 
Last edited:
You'll have to excuse Salmo, he's been back on the 'Dark Side' lately, and his usual good manners have taken quite a dive after consorting with the ne'er-do-wells over there.
Next he'll be ranting about chums again, or covid vaccines...both of which should be considered topics not to be discussed in polite company.
;)
:) .. all good, preferring passion over indifference
 
In the Bob Marshall, near the Bob Marshall doesn't matter..
Were not lawyers... grizzly nearby ap they left and had a shotgun just in case. Those are the relevant facts...
 
In the Bob Marshall, near the Bob Marshall doesn't matter..
Were not lawyers... grizzly nearby ap they left and had a shotgun just in case. Those are the relevant facts...
@Rob, it's a pretty big assumption that none of us on here are lawyers. That's the second time you said that over the last few days and I just wanted to point out that lawyers are in more places than you might think. :cool:
 
Yes, really. All those campgrounds and the roads around them are outside the wilderness boundary. Not that the bears care much about boundary lines, but your 4x4 statement caught my eye. I have hiked in a fair number of wilderness areas, and one thing they are more than clear about is no motorized vehicles allowed. The USFS was rebuilding a bridge over the SF Flathead when we floated through in 2018, and the crew told us that every piece came in via pack train of horses and mules. Emergencies are the only exception I know of. During a forest fire in about 2016, the USFS flew hikers and packrafters who could have become trapped out by helicopter.
During my 14 years in Mountain Rescue, I can remember choppers coming in to transport live subjects in NPs and Wilderness after we stabilized and packaged them, but the Rescue team had to hike in & out.
 
In the Bob Marshall, near the Bob Marshall doesn't matter..
Were not lawyers... grizzly nearby ap they left and had a shotgun just in case. Those are the relevant facts..
the most relevant fact being it was one big mofo, like a compact SUV with massive shoulder and legs...made that 12 ga feel a lot more unsubstantial then when shooting it at grouping outlines.
 
I suspect a local outlet in PNW will pick this up, but here is link to WAPO that has a paywall:


Oh great, MORE competition on the rivers.

Nah, I kid. grizzlies are awesome.... from a distance.
I can remember attending a meeting in Stehekin 30+ years ago on this subject. Three groups of people present:

1. Great - how wonderful!
2. I love hiking and I love the North Cascades, so I don't really want to worry about grizzlies.
3. Hell, we killed 'em all 100+ years ago. Why would we bring 'em back?
 
@Rob, it's a pretty big assumption that none of us on here are lawyers. That's the second time you said that over the last few days and I just wanted to point out that lawyers are in more places than you might think. :cool:
Like ticks on a dog and (some are) worthless too… 😉
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Zak
I've certainly met some less than helpful (and some downright bad) lawyers. But when you need one, a good lawyer that can give you wise counsel and zealously represent your interests is worth their fee.
No argument there
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zak
i haven't been around much lately but stumbling on this thread was an early christmas gift. what a bonus to get the end and find it still not locked down. so economical - one thread with so much good input. the usual suspects chop up the subject in an interesting and meaningful way, we get first-hand anecdotes, sermons, authoritative citations, civil argument, awesome pics, spelling and gramatical errors, guns, memes, political undercurrents, travers ....

and just as it feels like i'm losing interest and can't possibly last for 28 pages...

here comes ROB.

walking through the garden in the cool of the morning, speaking ones and zeros into existence ex nihilo; luxuriating in a perfect blend of certainty and oblivion, like hot tub of calgon. all while humbly admitting he is not, in fact, a lawyer. still the greatest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top