And hatchery bears won't be inbred?Can we keep this thread on bear poop please
U.S. drafts plan to bring grizzly bears back to Washington’s North Cascades (WAPO)
- Thread starter kmudgn
- Start date
Flymph
Steelhead
Quick sample of this poop shows mostly berries and other vegetation.
Salute to all those recovery deniers.
I suspect the issue is not the carrying capacity. I suspect rather there currently is not the minimum viable population to allow the population to maintain itself or even grow.
"The two grizzly bear ranges in North America with the apparent potential of supporting >300-600 bears – the Selway-Bitterroot and North Cascades[8]– have not exhibited robust population growth simply because a sufficient inoculum of bears has been lacking." Grizzly Times, but taken from results in #2
1. https://www.grizzlytimes.org/expand...ns such as,the minimum standards for recovery.
2. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082757
Don't believe these have been sited yet:
Minimum viable population and reserve sizes for naturally ...Regulations.govhttps://downloads.regulations.gov › attachment...
cheers
Here is a specific quote from the North Cascades EIS:
It's very similar to everything else I posted. I'm really not cherry picking data because all the data is saying essentially the same thing about the importance of occasional meat sources .I think they did a great job talking about how they hope these bears do well on a largely vegetarian diet.
In my opinion it left a lot to be desired. This blurb on elk for example:
They include the Colockum herd for example to come up with a percent Mr. Grizz may eat then it's like they conclude they probably shouldn't because that herd really isn't even in the area and they don't know how many elk are in the NCE.When they talk about deer they largely mention numbers influenced by okanogan mule deer which is a shell of it's historic levels but greater then anything NCE has and is also outside Mr. Grizz's "zone." I could go on but I think you get my point.
Although I mention ungulates a lot I think historically these bears probably largely feasted on key salmon runs. Again no longer a reliable source of food.
So no I don't think it's a big stretch to think these bears will struggle and wander into trouble with our greater human population.
Apologies I didn't get back to you sooner. Didn't want to rush a reply during a few workdays.
And no I am not taking this too confrontational
More thread drift:
Come on @Brute! Haven't heard you mention you like bears (for a day or two!
). Last year I spent six days near Yakutat City. The first night in the lodge I heard a loud racket just outside the cabin; it turns out a coastal brown bear was trying to get into the meat hanging building; two hunters had killed a moose the day before, skinned it and had the carcass hanging in there. The bear was trying to tear apart the building - one of the guides managed to scare the bear off.
The next day we rode journeyed to a brackish marsh in hopes we could get to the lodge's choice river: too much rain so we couldn't ford the creeks to get to the river. The creeks, near flood tide, supported a good run of ocean fresh coho so we fished the marsh where the creeks drain into the ocean. There were two bears swimming in this prime fishing water when we got there and they weren't too keen on leaving but eventually did. This is what the beach looked like that morning:
One of the swimmers that didn't want to leave:
Now - back to the debate on grizzly bears, bear sh-- in the woods, ungulates and all the cool stuff.
Come on @Brute! Haven't heard you mention you like bears (for a day or two!
). Last year I spent six days near Yakutat City. The first night in the lodge I heard a loud racket just outside the cabin; it turns out a coastal brown bear was trying to get into the meat hanging building; two hunters had killed a moose the day before, skinned it and had the carcass hanging in there. The bear was trying to tear apart the building - one of the guides managed to scare the bear off. The next day we rode journeyed to a brackish marsh in hopes we could get to the lodge's choice river: too much rain so we couldn't ford the creeks to get to the river. The creeks, near flood tide, supported a good run of ocean fresh coho so we fished the marsh where the creeks drain into the ocean. There were two bears swimming in this prime fishing water when we got there and they weren't too keen on leaving but eventually did. This is what the beach looked like that morning:
One of the swimmers that didn't want to leave:
Now - back to the debate on grizzly bears, bear sh-- in the woods, ungulates and all the cool stuff.
All the studies in the first blurb appear to reference YNP bears which we know depend more heavily on ungulates because they are more available. I disagree with the point you are trying to make in the second part of your post. Grizzlies will prey on what’s available in their range. If they spread to where those herds are, they’ll likely be an impact on them. In the end, there are well documented populations of grizzlies that don’t depend heavily on ungulates, salmon or either.Here is a specific quote from the North Cascades EIS:
View attachment 90114It's very similar to everything else I posted. I'm really not cherry picking data because all the data is saying essentially the same thing about the importance of occasional meat sources .
I think they did a great job talking about how they hope these bears do well on a largely vegetarian diet.
In my opinion it left a lot to be desired. This blurb on elk for example: View attachment 90120They include the Colockum herd for example to come up with a percent Mr. Grizz may eat then it's like they conclude they probably shouldn't because that herd really isn't even in the area and they don't know how many elk are in the NCE.
When they talk about deer they largely mention numbers influenced by okanogan mule deer which is a shell of it's historic levels but greater then anything NCE has and is also outside Mr. Grizz's "zone." I could go on but I think you get my point.
Although I mention ungulates a lot I think historically these bears probably largely feasted on key salmon runs. Again no longer a reliable source of food.
So no I don't think it's a big stretch to think these bears will struggle and wander into trouble with our greater human population.
Apologies I didn't get back to you sooner. Didn't want to rush a reply during a few workdays.
And no I am not taking this too confrontational
I am not spending a ton of time on this because like you, I have work and fishing to attend to. That said, from what I have read, this decision is at least partial built on two studies. One that says the NCE can support 275 bears, the other says 250 - 300.
Predicting Grizzly Bear Density in Western North America
Conservation of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) is often controversial and the disagreement often is focused on the estimates of density used to calculate allowable kill. Many recent estimates of grizzly bear density are now available but field-based estimates will never be available for more than...
journals.plos.org
These are snippets. I am not paying to read the full studies. If I can find them for free, I’ll post the link. Not tonight though. I have a date with some fish a first light tomorrow
.There will be conflict if the area gets to 200 bears. There is no doubt about that. WY, MT and ID kill a number of problem grizzlies annually. IMO, that is not a reason to not reintroduce.
As someone who lives in the Kootenays (bc) with a reasonably robust population of grizzly bears...it's a pretty nice thing to have. An intact ecosystem with wolves, grizz, cougars, etc is even better. I guess I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want that.
To just give up and say it's over and there's no point in trying doesn't seem too environmental of us/fisherman/hunters. Sure, might the grizz struggle a little? Might it fail? Maybe, but over time they might get a good foothold, establish a decent breeding population, and then that's another win for the various ecosystems.
I don't know, as someone who cares about the environment.....there doesn't seem to be a single reason against trying it...other than 'it might fail'.
Fin
To just give up and say it's over and there's no point in trying doesn't seem too environmental of us/fisherman/hunters. Sure, might the grizz struggle a little? Might it fail? Maybe, but over time they might get a good foothold, establish a decent breeding population, and then that's another win for the various ecosystems.
I don't know, as someone who cares about the environment.....there doesn't seem to be a single reason against trying it...other than 'it might fail'.
Fin
and we probably have what ten times the population density of those states? So yeah looking at potential for a larger amount of conflict seems important in gaging where or if we should reintroduce
and we probably have what ten times the population density of those states? So yeah looking at potential for a larger amount of conflict seems important in gaging where or if we should reintroduce
In areas surrounding the North Cascades? They’ll also be far fewer bears.
If the billionaires in Jackson WY and deal with it, I’m sure rural Washingtonians can as well.
More thread drift:
Come on @Brute! Haven't heard you mention you like bears (for a day or two!
The next day we rode journeyed to a brackish marsh in hopes we could get to the lodge's choice river: too much rain so we couldn't ford the creeks to get to the river. The creeks, near flood tide, supported a good run of ocean fresh coho so we fished the marsh where the creeks drain into the ocean. There were two bears swimming in this prime fishing water when we got there and they weren't too keen on leaving but eventually did. This is what the beach looked like that morning:
View attachment 90134
One of the swimmers that didn't want to leave:
View attachment 90135
Now - back to the debate on grizzly bears, bear sh-- in the woods, ungulates and all the cool stuff.
More thread drift:
Come on @Brute! Haven't heard you mention you like bears (for a day or two!
The next day we rode journeyed to a brackish marsh in hopes we could get to the lodge's choice river: too much rain so we couldn't ford the creeks to get to the river. The creeks, near flood tide, supported a good run of ocean fresh coho so we fished the marsh where the creeks drain into the ocean. There were two bears swimming in this prime fishing water when we got there and they weren't too keen on leaving but eventually did. This is what the beach looked like that morning:
View attachment 90134
One of the swimmers that didn't want to leave:
View attachment 90135
Now - back to the debate on grizzly bears, bear sh-- in the woods, ungulates and all the cool stuff.
Baby bear to momma bear “momma, do we eat ungulates?”
I like bears…
With just a population of 10 thousand and the fact we are 25 times the population density of Wyoming overall I don't see much comparison.
These large roaming apex predators are clearly not staying exactly where we are placing them. Look at all the maps @Brian Miller has posted of the zones and expansion.
We have all joked about Grizzles by Seattle. It really isn't that far away. Bears in Alaska have been known to travel 250 miles for salmon. I would laugh pretty hard if the first thing that happened was a bear headed for the coast.
What will they eat in the NCE was partially addressed by the EIS by mentioning herds largely outside the NCE. I found that telling....
Good luck fishing!
Last edited:
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.
Flymph
Steelhead
When ever possible I travel to Alberta for some much needed stream fishing. There are plenty of black and Grizz in the area. I talk, "a lot" to the locals who offer bear advice and explain of any recent activity. They tell me "don't worry and make a lot of noise"! The Albertans seem to enjoy their relationship with brother bruin and are almost carefree about rambling through the bush to fish the untouched pools. Like most Americans, I am scared to the bone of an encounter but try to understand my behavior.
On a recent trip I was chatting with a local fellow who thought it comical that a Grizz had frequented his back yard on several occasions. I asked if he was worried about his, and his family's safety, he smiled and said "they (the Grizz) live here".
I am in awe of the "Great Bear" and quite aware of his ability to end my life. Nevertheless, his presence on this planet is just as important as mine and, like the great buffalo, I will do everything I can to undo what my greedy, mindless, predecessors, did to vanquish his existence. There is a bottom line in this debate. If we don't restore the bear they will perish!
On a recent trip I was chatting with a local fellow who thought it comical that a Grizz had frequented his back yard on several occasions. I asked if he was worried about his, and his family's safety, he smiled and said "they (the Grizz) live here".
I am in awe of the "Great Bear" and quite aware of his ability to end my life. Nevertheless, his presence on this planet is just as important as mine and, like the great buffalo, I will do everything I can to undo what my greedy, mindless, predecessors, did to vanquish his existence. There is a bottom line in this debate. If we don't restore the bear they will perish!
Just food for thought...the government is classifying this as a nonessential experimental stocking
Last edited:
Flymph
Steelhead
Understood. Nevertheless, the feds reasoning was based on "threatened". I would have hoped for "Endangered" but I'll take what I can get.Just food for thought...the government is classifying this as a nonessential experimental stocking
