I think your heart is in a good place. Appreciate the discussion remaining civil
U.S. drafts plan to bring grizzly bears back to Washington’s North Cascades (WAPO)
- Thread starter kmudgn
- Start date
Taking a short distance road trip for a few days to convince landowners surrounding the target release zone who really have a reason to care that outward Griz migration is no big deal might be an enlightening experience.
I am no longer able to make it back up into the remote North Cascades area I had been in before, and doubt that Griz will migrate south into the Central Cascades where I can still go before I'm gone. I'm also not a deer-elk hunter, so I'm pretty low on the stakeholder pole.
But do go talk to the landowners closest to the "release" area in the NCE that hasn't seen any Griz for 50-150 years. See see how they feel about it and the measures they will have to take. If they have objections convince them it's for good for their area.
BTW the NPS video I quoted before said public meetings were held about two weeks ago, and that 140K comments from the previous restoration effort that was discontinued in 2020 were also being considered for this go-'round. I'd love to see the record and analysis of *
Last edited:
A couple comments. Last one first. I don't see how grizzly bears will perish whether a small population is restored to the NCE or not. The bear population in Montana has been increasing in number and expanding in range for years now. That seems likely to continue until the bear population reaches a number that causes some unacceptable amount of human conflict, at which point bears will be shot to control, maintain, and stabilize the population at whatever level is deemed acceptable. Whether there are NCE bears or not doesn't seem like it would have any affect on what's going on with grizzly bears overall in the lower 48.
The second thing is, bear and human presence on this planet may be equally important in your mind, but Planet Earth doesn't give a damn about either. The planet's ecosystems will just keep on keepin' on, adjusting and modifying according to both natural and anthropomorphic processes and effects. In its own uncaring way, the planet is doing what it can to eliminate human and animate presence. It's only a thin atmosphere that even allows us life forms to exist, while we do what we can to degrade that. Meanwhile, earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes do what they can to hasten our departure. My point being that neither bears nor humans nor anything else is important. It's just our collective arrogant consciousness that thinks so.
Flymph
Steelhead
In réponse to your first paragraph. I have already supplied evidence to the contrary. Also, there was evidence provided that the bears will improve the ecosystem.
In response to your last paragraph. I agree with most of what you say and ask you to apply these same thoughts to the extinction of Salmon.
I've really enjoyed reading this thread and, as Billy mentioned, am appreciative that everyone has remained civil.
Some interesting points have been made that bring up interesting philosophical questions -
Do Grizzlies lives and species continuity matter as much as human lives and human enterprise?
Do we have an obligation to restore them because we killed off most Grizzly populations?
Does the opinion of people in proximity to the resore zones 'matter' more than the opinions of the rest of us?
Salmo G commented that we're all equally unimportant to the planet's ecosystem, but IMHO I would also suggest that we're all equally codependant on each other even if we're not aware of it.
We've F'd up the environment in part because we were unaware of the ripple effects of our actions (or just didn't care). The overharvest of forage fish like Bunker and Herring, Fracking, dredge mining, clearing debris and clearing the channel in rivers like the Cedar to minimize flooding. The list goes on and on.
This kinda reminds me of the Wild Steelhead at all cost .ORGs. What are we willing/obligated to sacrifice to bring wild steelhead back? Is it even possible in some rivers given the damage that's been done? Will it gain enough support for the politicians to back it?
The Grizzly saga will play out and I'm sure it will be entertaining. But like the push to provide fish passage on the Upper Skagit dams, I'm not sure it will make any difference. Get you popcorn -
Some interesting points have been made that bring up interesting philosophical questions -
Do Grizzlies lives and species continuity matter as much as human lives and human enterprise?
Do we have an obligation to restore them because we killed off most Grizzly populations?
Does the opinion of people in proximity to the resore zones 'matter' more than the opinions of the rest of us?
Salmo G commented that we're all equally unimportant to the planet's ecosystem, but IMHO I would also suggest that we're all equally codependant on each other even if we're not aware of it.
We've F'd up the environment in part because we were unaware of the ripple effects of our actions (or just didn't care). The overharvest of forage fish like Bunker and Herring, Fracking, dredge mining, clearing debris and clearing the channel in rivers like the Cedar to minimize flooding. The list goes on and on.
This kinda reminds me of the Wild Steelhead at all cost .ORGs. What are we willing/obligated to sacrifice to bring wild steelhead back? Is it even possible in some rivers given the damage that's been done? Will it gain enough support for the politicians to back it?
The Grizzly saga will play out and I'm sure it will be entertaining. But like the push to provide fish passage on the Upper Skagit dams, I'm not sure it will make any difference. Get you popcorn -
FinLuver
Native Oregonian…1846
That’s good advice, but have you seen how people in the Seattle metro area drive? What makes you think they’ll have the common sense to follow the advice while out in the woods?
TicTokCroc
Sunkist and Sudafed
Did you read the studies I posted?
There is no doubt they will expand. Maybe towards Seattle if the habitat is viable. I hope that happens if the habitat can support them. I fact, I believe one of the potential recovery zones in WA was the southern cascades. Not sure that is still being considered but obviously the scientist proposing this understand and expect the bears will expand their range if the habitat is viable.
IMO, if the land will support them, grizzlies should be allowed to repopulate, with help if needed, anywhere in their historic range. Humans have proactively and purposefully removed them from 98% of their historic range in the continental US. I have no concerns if they repopulate viable habitat close to major population centers. Maybe by the time I die, that number will be down a few percentage points. Probably the best I can hope for considering. Would we not want salmon and steelhead to repopulate any viable habitat available to them not being fully utilized?
I hear the arguments against but until I see research backing those concerns, my opinion will not change.
I don't see a reason to go down a rabbit hole of trying to lump this with salmon and steelhead. Do you support stocking them? I didn't think so.
It's apples and oranges.
Regarding the studies you posted I skimmed them but didn't pay for the full articles. One mentioned the rather extensive effects roads have on grizzly bears. Washington has a lot of roads. I don't believe the EIS mentions this potential conflict when the bears inevitably wander outside the NCE. Like I said the EIS in my opinion left a lot to be desired. Have you read it?
If you are asking if I support stocked salmon, yes I do. I stock my freezer every year with them in fact. That said, that is the apples to oranges comparison. This is a relocation, not a breeding/stocking operation being proposed. I have read most of the EIS (draft Sept 2023 version) and do not see the red flags you do. It’s an EIS summarizing thousands of pages of research cited in it.
I don't think you want to see the red flags because as you yourself point out you don't care where they end up in this state.
You constantly point out that any data I bring up on diet usually involves data on the YP bears. Like for example when I pointed out this blurb from the EIS:
You discredited it as having data or research from yellowstone bears contradicting the fact that it was researched for the NCE EIS. Then in the above you say trust the EIS and the research provided. So do we trust it unless you don't believe the data should apply? But others don't get to question it and do the same?
TicTokCroc
Sunkist and Sudafed
In a billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years grizzly bears won't even matter anyways.
People that hate hatcheries for salmon and steelhead love the idea of a grizzly hatchery. You can't make this stuff up. Welcome to Washington, may I take your edgy and hip order?
We've discussed this already. The research referenced was not done specifically for this EIS. The EIS is an assessment that uses research to guide that assessment. In that assessment, they note that there is potential for grizzlies to impact other species (of course). In making that assessment, they reference research on diets done on populations outside of the NCE since well, there is no viable grizzly population in the NCE to study. In that assessment they note that grizzlies scavenge and occasional prey on ungulates where they are abundant. Also, in many locations ungulates may be seasonally significant to their diet. The fact is, grizzlies will change the dynamic in the NCE. Nobody denies that including the authors of the EIS. They also note that the impact to ungulates is expected to be minimal a few pages later (where the bears will be sourced from, what's available to them in the NCE, etc.).
I have not been arguing there will be no impact to other wildlife due to the re-introduction. That goes without saying. This back and forth between you and I started because you were questioning if the habitat could support grizzlies. I have supplied multiple examples of research that supports the fact that it can. Also, it's not that I don't care where grizzlies end up. I am comfortable with them ending up wherever there is viable habitat that can support them. I am also comfortable with the fact that what is being proposed is an experimental population than can be actively managed if the expected impacts to wildlife, humans, etc. is not as expected. IMO, they should be given a shot though.
You know that is an apples to bowling ball comparison. I think folks that support restoration of native cutthroat species in YNP and Colorado for example where the source fish come from a different drainage would support this. Do you support those efforts? You may not, I know some don't.
I don't know you personally but have interacted enough with you on this board over the years to know you are a better than your comment above. Edgy was 1990. Hip was the 2010's. Do some digging if you are going to continue these flaccid attempts at propagating the really useful culture war happening in this country nowadays.
38:56 Their diets dependent on the ecosystem and availability of foods around the ecosystem. And that changes year to year, season to season in some areas. Grizzly bear diet consists of 90% plant matter and insect matter. Other other areas, grizzly bear diet consists consist predominantly of meat. So there's a range. There's a range there. Grizzly bears do occasionally attack livestock and in some cases, depredations can be chronic. If you get a bear that just figures out how to do it.
From the 2017 Selkirk recovery progress report
On average, grizzly bears’ meat consumption nearly doubles from summer to fall (10.7%summer to 17.6% fall). Fall shifts toward meat use were not isolated to a specific sexage class. Larger shifts include: an adult male (4327) shifting from 31% meat in summer to 82% meat in fall, an adult female (mortality on 5/18/2012) consuming 14% in spring time, then 38% in the fall, and a subadult female grizzly (675) with a summer diet consisting of 6% meat and fall diet of 16% meat. We suspect that wounding loss and gut piles from hunted ungulates contribute to observed increases in meat use by grizzly bears in fall months.
