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

[Flymph]

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

https://igbconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2017Selkirkgrizzlyfinal.pdf

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.

I have no doubt that if the restoration is denied, stalled, shut down, it will be for those who feel their livelihoods are being threatened. People prefer McDonalds shit food over preventing the disappearance of a great beast! I am quite sure that the Beef Industry lobby will have a strong influence on the restoration efforts. Hell, the beef industry should pool their assets with the folks who produce cholesterol reducing drugs to keep us alive (not cure) so they can continue raking in billions. Corporate greed in the form of the Hudson Bay Co. about wiped out the Great Bear to begin with and Corporate greed will no doubt have its way again.

There is a growing community of folks who obviously long for a cement covered planet filled with Arbys, McDonaods, and the like as their puppet masters. Only a few of us left who try our best to hang on to nature and its original inhabitants!

 

[Anonymous member 148]

 

[Dustin Chromers]

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.

My position is consistent. I'm not for introduction of out of basin species be it fin or fur. I am for the protection of what's there or what has the potential to matriculate there on its own.

I'm not trying to make a comment on a nationwide culture war. I do find the suicidology of inconsistent positions interesting. Especially when they come at great expense and conflict. The hyper pro predator advocates are imho out of touch and inconsistent. I'm not even stating my position is the most correct. It is however consistent.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

I have no doubt that if the restoration is denied, stalled, shut down, it will be for those who feel their livelihoods are being threatened. People prefer McDonalds shit food over preventing the disappearance of a great beast! I am quite sure that the Beef Industry lobby will have a strong influence on the restoration efforts. Hell, the beef industry should pool their assets with the folks who produce cholesterol reducing drugs to keep us alive (not cure) so they can continue raking in billions. Corporate greed in the form of the Hudson Bay Co. about wiped out the Great Bear to begin with and Corporate greed will no doubt have its way again.

There is a growing community of folks who obviously long for a cement covered planet filled with Arbys, McDonaods, and the like as their puppet masters. Only a few of us left who try our best to hang on to nature and its original inhabitants!

Nobody is ranching in the cascades. I doubt the beef industry cares. Rewilding is futile. Protecting what wild we have left is a noble effort I support. People should live the way they believe rather than provide lip service from their soft life chambers in orbit. That alone would be a giant step in being easier on the planet and carving a space for wild things to be wild. Most lack the authenticity or desire to do so however.

 

[jasmillo]

My position is consistent. I'm not for introduction of out of basin species be it fin or fur. I am for the protection of what's there or what has the potential to matriculate there on its own.

I'm not trying to make a comment on a nationwide culture war. I do find the suicidology of inconsistent positions interesting. Especially when they come at great expense and conflict. The hyper pro predator advocates are imho out of touch and inconsistent. I'm not even stating my position is the most correct. It is however consistent.

What about restoration of the same species in a basin but sourced from a different drainage? If significant barriers exist that would stop them from repopulating naturally.

I for one am not a hyper pro predator advocate for the record. I am a realist who understands grizzlies will never roam 90%+ of their historic range. There are nearly 400 million people if this country. I am all for having them in protected areas where the habitat supports them though. There will no doubt be conflict. They will no doubt get into trouble and have to be managed…just like most other wildlife in the country these days.

 

[DimeBrite]

Take a long back packing trip on the Pacific Crest Trail from Stephens Pass north to the Canadian border. It would be a great way to learn the plant and animal foods that will be available to grizzly bears. Good exercise too. A group PNW Fly Fishing group outing would be bonding.

 

[SKYKO]

Nobody is ranching in the cascades. I doubt the beef industry cares. Rewilding is futile. Protecting what wild we have left is a noble effort I support. People should live the way they believe rather than provide lip service from their soft life chambers in orbit. That alone would be a giant step in being easier on the planet and carving a space for wild things to be wild. Most lack the authenticity or desire to do so however.

How is rewilding in all its various forms from small scale urban efforts to this discussion and everything in-between futile? I'm not a science guy but this statement seems like a gross over generalization and frankly depressing.

 

[Salmo_g]

Only a few of us left who try our best to hang on to nature and its original inhabitants!

Original refers to origin. Who and what are the original inhabitants? I presume you have a particular point in time in mind here. Most of Planet Earth's 4 billion year history was devoid of any life forms, so original inhabitants = zero. The original living inhabitant appears to have been blue green algae. Therefore I'm curious about what makes grizzly bears original in your view. Here in the PNW a lot of us fish biologists use a benchmark in time of 1850, when the natural environment hadn't been significantly modified by human activity.

 

[Mossback]

The original living inhabitant appears to have been blue green algae.

Go Algae !!!

 

[Matt B]

Here in the PNW a lot of us fish biologists use a benchmark in time of 1850, when the natural environment hadn't been significantly modified by human activity.

That's one perspective. Here's another. https://crosscut.com/focus/2019/09/...es-once-shaped-northwest-and-they-might-again

Original refers to origin. Who and what are the original inhabitants?

"What is the correct baseline to use?" is a valid question. 1850 might be a reasonable benchmark to try to use, but not everybody agrees that the natural environment had not been significantly modified by human activity at that point in time. Certainly, it hadn't been modified the way it later would be through industrialization, etc.

 

[Pink Nighty]

Original refers to origin. Who and what are the original inhabitants? I presume you have a particular point in time in mind here. Most of Planet Earth's 4 billion year history was devoid of any life forms, so original inhabitants = zero. The original living inhabitant appears to have been blue green algae. Therefore I'm curious about what makes grizzly bears original in your view. Here in the PNW a lot of us fish biologists use a benchmark in time of 1850, when the natural environment hadn't been significantly modified by human activity.

How old is the blue green algae? I heard they found a fossilized mushroom over a billion years old.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

That's one perspective. Here's another. https://crosscut.com/focus/2019/09/...es-once-shaped-northwest-and-they-might-again

"What is the correct baseline to use?" is a valid question. 1850 might be a reasonable benchmark to try to use, but not everybody agrees that the natural environment had not been significantly modified by human activity at that point in time. Certainly, it hadn't been modified the way it later would be through industrialization, etc.

In addition, to when, also need to ask where?
Different parts of the planet were probably colonized at different times based on varying factors.

If you ask Graham Hancock, I'm guessing he'd say 1850 is no where near far back enough.

 

[Brute]

The Blue Green Algae hunter closing in on his prey…

 

[Flymph]

Original refers to origin. Who and what are the original inhabitants? I presume you have a particular point in time in mind here. Most of Planet Earth's 4 billion year history was devoid of any life forms, so original inhabitants = zero. The original living inhabitant appears to have been blue green algae. Therefore I'm curious about what makes grizzly bears original in your view. Here in the PNW a lot of us fish biologists use a benchmark in time of 1850, when the natural environment hadn't been significantly modified by human activity.

Really, this is a point to be debating when we are trying to restore what we nearly destroyed?? If you want, ignore my second paragraph and concentrate on the first one. Brian made a solid point about opposition coming from cattle barons and I agreed that they will quite possibly have a big impact on the final restoration outcome.

 

[Brian Miller]

Take a long back packing trip on the Pacific Crest Trail from Stephens Pass north to the Canadian border. It would be a great way to learn the plant and animal foods that will be available to grizzly bears. Good exercise too. A group PNW Fly Fishing group outing would be bonding.

Sneak Preview...

 

[GAT]

Geeezus..... I'm still laughing over that first clip .... I'm not even sure why I find that so funny. The hiker was clearly out of control of the situation

 

[Merle]

Geeezus..... I'm still laughing over that first clip .... I'm not even sure why I find that so funny. The hiker was clearly out of control of the situation

same here I LOL-ed at both of the falling gifs and even saved them to my desktop.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

How is rewilding in all its various forms from small scale urban efforts to this discussion and everything in-between futile? I'm not a science guy but this statement seems like a gross over generalization and frankly depressing.

It's futile because people have lost the ability to live with nature in raw form. Even obtaining or growing food would elude 90% of the population in this country without a grocery store. We can't go back. We can attempt to protect and foster what's left. But the signature of man on the landscape isn't going away. A national park is for the most part altered as well. Animals aren't behaving as they would without the tourons of Yellowstone trying to get a selfie. We are the hatchery fish they warned us about. We're good at spawning though.

 

[DimeBrite]

 

[Mossback]

Algae...
Earth's Superfood for 40 million years !!!