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

[DimeBrite]

The Hoary Marmot. Grizzly bear food or impossible to access protein?

 

[TicTokCroc]

View attachment 90589
The Hoary Marmot. Grizzly bear food or impossible to access protein?

How many big lebowski gifs can I get in this thread...

 

[JS]

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.

#triggered

 

[Buzzy]

View attachment 90593
How many big lebowski gifs can I get in this thread...

One very funny movie!

 

[jasmillo]

#triggered

#no sense of humor

View attachment 90593
How many big lebowski gifs can I get in this thread...

As many as possible. Probably my all time favorite scene from that movie has to be this. Relevant to this thread.



Age restricted but will play if you click on it.

Walter: “Lets not forget Dude that keeping wildlife, um... an amphibious rodent, for... um, ya know domestic... within the city... that ain't legal either.”

Dude: “What are you, a fucking park ranger now”

 

[Billy]

Washington streams in a couple years if @jasmillo and @Flymph get their wishes:

 

[Billy]

Me meanwhile headed to the bass pond:

 

[G_Smolt]

I was in the seafood industry when that commercial came out ("John West - we go through the worst to bring you the best"), and after I laughed my ass off about it, I realized the farmed fish folk had won.
That was 2006.

 

[G_Smolt]

...and since everyone has their underoos in a bunch about bears, I figured I would add some bear-themed content.
Little known fact: mama bears enjoy watching skaters just as much as I do.

 

[JS]

#no sense of humor

Are you sure

 

[Flymph]

I am taking donations to arm the North Cascades Liberation Army who have vowed to free those of us who are destined for "Vermin Camps"

 

[Coach Potter]

If the reintroduction is successful, it will be hunters who have the most interaction with them. I feel bad for the first hunter who is forced to kill one of them.

 

[RCF]

Have Grizzly bears near trains - helps solve population issues:

Drunk Grizzlies Keep Getting Hit By Trains In Montana

Since 1980, 63 grizzlies have been hit by trains and killed along a section of railroad near Glacier National Park. Many died because they got drunk on fermented grain spilled from railcars and couldn’t move fast enough to outrun the trains.

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[Dustin Chromers]

If the reintroduction is successful, it will be hunters who have the most interaction with them. I feel bad for the first hunter who is forced to kill one of them.

Let's just be really real for a minute. No offense intended to anyone but if you can't handle real I feel sorry for you cause blunt gets to the bottom of things quickly.

It's always those that don't have to deal with the consequences of these types of things that are all for them. The typical pro predator individual is either a dot com urbanite who fancies themselves an outdoor type by hiking popular trails and maybe getting that sea kayak out on a windy day or they are on the governor appointed game commission masquerading as an unbiased expert in such matters. Their net time in areas where interaction with a grizzly is possible is net near zero. Therefore they are comfortable with their edgy opinions on what is right and environmentally just. They are essentially out of touch with the realities of many things.

Many who are against such things are so for selfish sporting reasons. And they fear for their safety. Most hunters I know that are of the predator hunting variety harbour a fear of these animals. However slight, primal, or buried in the subconscious their hinting is a means to atone and exercise this instinct. Some are overly concerned with the realities of the matter and out of touch in their own ways.

Then there's people who do spend their time in the woods. Maybe making a living there and dwelling there without the common lifestyles enjoyed by most. These people see the whole issue and debate as idiotic and will ultimately be who ends up in conflict with the hatchery bear spirit animal some Seattleite loves so much. It's a waste of time, money, and frankly will probably be a boondoggle of epic proportions for no gain. The habitat is there but the Bears can't show proper passport to get South of the 49th? Again, I don't get it. It's feel good bullshit to reintroduce them. This isn't Yellowstone and conflicts are absolutely inevitabe. It won't be because dot com Gary is out for a rugged hike in the cascades though. It will be some poor hungry bear wandering into a feedlot or rural town only to be paperwork filled, observed, then shot. Then a bunch of nerds will study the shit out of it literally and we can all feel good about the amazing science and rewilding we are doing? It's a crock of shit with berries and seeds included. But hey somebody got their feel good thing and didn't have to deal with it. They probably will weigh in via Facebook though on how heartless the shooter was and how they are disappointed in the wdfw for not doing "the right thing."

There's more productive things to worry about and spend conservation dollars on even if it is "free" federal money. It's time to face reality. If grizzlies were able to make a living in the cascades they would be doing it and likely are in numbers that can be supported.

 

[FinLuver]

Let's just be really real for a minute. No offense intended to anyone but if you can't handle real I feel sorry for you cause blunt gets to the bottom of things quickly.

It's always those that don't have to deal with the consequences of these types of things that are all for them. The typical pro predator individual is either a dot com urbanite who fancies themselves an outdoor type by hiking popular trails and maybe getting that sea kayak out on a windy day or they are on the governor appointed game commission masquerading as an unbiased expert in such matters. Their net time in areas where interaction with a grizzly is possible is net near zero. Therefore they are comfortable with their edgy opinions on what is right and environmentally just. They are essentially out of touch with the realities of many things.

Many who are against such things are so for selfish sporting reasons. And they fear for their safety. Most hunters I know that are of the predator hunting variety harbour a fear of these animals. However slight, primal, or buried in the subconscious their hinting is a means to atone and exercise this instinct. Some are overly concerned with the realities of the matter and out of touch in their own ways.

Then there's people who do spend their time in the woods. Maybe making a living there and dwelling there without the common lifestyles enjoyed by most. These people see the whole issue and debate as idiotic and will ultimately be who ends up in conflict with the hatchery bear spirit animal some Seattleite loves so much. It's a waste of time, money, and frankly will probably be a boondoggle of epic proportions for no gain. The habitat is there but the Bears can't show proper passport to get South of the 49th? Again, I don't get it. It's feel good bullshit to reintroduce them. This isn't Yellowstone and conflicts are absolutely inevitabe. It won't be because dot com Gary is out for a rugged hike in the cascades though. It will be some poor hungry bear wandering into a feedlot or rural town only to be paperwork filled, observed, then shot. Then a bunch of nerds will study the shit out of it literally and we can all feel good about the amazing science and rewilding we are doing? It's a crock of shit with berries and seeds included. But hey somebody got their feel good thing and didn't have to deal with it. They probably will weigh in via Facebook though on how heartless the shooter was and how they are disappointed in the wdfw for not doing "the right thing."

There's more productive things to worry about and spend conservation dollars on even if it is "free" federal money. It's time to face reality. If grizzlies were able to make a living in the cascades they would be doing it and likely are in numbers that can be supported.

^^^Read it…re-read it…over and over again…Truth in Fact!! ^^^

 

[Jim F.]

There's more productive things to worry about and spend conservation dollars on even if it is "free" federal money. It's time to face reality. If grizzlies were able to make a living in the cascades they would be doing it and likely are in numbers that can be supported.

Just because the Feds can do something doesn't mean they should do something. Old advice from my Father: "I see what this might do for me, now more importantly, what can it do to me" . . .

 

[JudyM]

What my Cuz up in Juneau texted me back after I texted him about the Griz being "transplanted": "Brownies eat black bears. So, where you find brownies, you don't find many black bears. They are at the top of the food chain."

 

[Billy]

Let's just be really real for a minute. No offense intended to anyone but if you can't handle real I feel sorry for you cause blunt gets to the bottom of things quickly.

It's always those that don't have to deal with the consequences of these types of things that are all for them. The typical pro predator individual is either a dot com urbanite who fancies themselves an outdoor type by hiking popular trails and maybe getting that sea kayak out on a windy day or they are on the governor appointed game commission masquerading as an unbiased expert in such matters. Their net time in areas where interaction with a grizzly is possible is net near zero. Therefore they are comfortable with their edgy opinions on what is right and environmentally just. They are essentially out of touch with the realities of many things.

Many who are against such things are so for selfish sporting reasons. And they fear for their safety. Most hunters I know that are of the predator hunting variety harbour a fear of these animals. However slight, primal, or buried in the subconscious their hinting is a means to atone and exercise this instinct. Some are overly concerned with the realities of the matter and out of touch in their own ways.

Then there's people who do spend their time in the woods. Maybe making a living there and dwelling there without the common lifestyles enjoyed by most. These people see the whole issue and debate as idiotic and will ultimately be who ends up in conflict with the hatchery bear spirit animal some Seattleite loves so much. It's a waste of time, money, and frankly will probably be a boondoggle of epic proportions for no gain. The habitat is there but the Bears can't show proper passport to get South of the 49th? Again, I don't get it. It's feel good bullshit to reintroduce them. This isn't Yellowstone and conflicts are absolutely inevitabe. It won't be because dot com Gary is out for a rugged hike in the cascades though. It will be some poor hungry bear wandering into a feedlot or rural town only to be paperwork filled, observed, then shot. Then a bunch of nerds will study the shit out of it literally and we can all feel good about the amazing science and rewilding we are doing? It's a crock of shit with berries and seeds included. But hey somebody got their feel good thing and didn't have to deal with it. They probably will weigh in via Facebook though on how heartless the shooter was and how they are disappointed in the wdfw for not doing "the right thing."

There's more productive things to worry about and spend conservation dollars on even if it is "free" federal money. It's time to face reality. If grizzlies were able to make a living in the cascades they would be doing it and likely are in numbers that can be supported.

Please send that in as a comment

 

[jasmillo]

Let's just be really real for a minute. No offense intended to anyone but if you can't handle real I feel sorry for you cause blunt gets to the bottom of things quickly.

It's always those that don't have to deal with the consequences of these types of things that are all for them. The typical pro predator individual is either a dot com urbanite who fancies themselves an outdoor type by hiking popular trails and maybe getting that sea kayak out on a windy day or they are on the governor appointed game commission masquerading as an unbiased expert in such matters. Their net time in areas where interaction with a grizzly is possible is net near zero. Therefore they are comfortable with their edgy opinions on what is right and environmentally just. They are essentially out of touch with the realities of many things.

Many who are against such things are so for selfish sporting reasons. And they fear for their safety. Most hunters I know that are of the predator hunting variety harbour a fear of these animals. However slight, primal, or buried in the subconscious their hinting is a means to atone and exercise this instinct. Some are overly concerned with the realities of the matter and out of touch in their own ways.

Then there's people who do spend their time in the woods. Maybe making a living there and dwelling there without the common lifestyles enjoyed by most. These people see the whole issue and debate as idiotic and will ultimately be who ends up in conflict with the hatchery bear spirit animal some Seattleite loves so much. It's a waste of time, money, and frankly will probably be a boondoggle of epic proportions for no gain. The habitat is there but the Bears can't show proper passport to get South of the 49th? Again, I don't get it. It's feel good bullshit to reintroduce them. This isn't Yellowstone and conflicts are absolutely inevitabe. It won't be because dot com Gary is out for a rugged hike in the cascades though. It will be some poor hungry bear wandering into a feedlot or rural town only to be paperwork filled, observed, then shot. Then a bunch of nerds will study the shit out of it literally and we can all feel good about the amazing science and rewilding we are doing? It's a crock of shit with berries and seeds included. But hey somebody got their feel good thing and didn't have to deal with it. They probably will weigh in via Facebook though on how heartless the shooter was and how they are disappointed in the wdfw for not doing "the right thing."

There's more productive things to worry about and spend conservation dollars on even if it is "free" federal money. It's time to face reality. If grizzlies were able to make a living in the cascades they would be doing it and likely are in numbers that can be supported.

I agree with most of what you said but there are some broad generalizations there.

Not every Seattelite would be for this for the same reasons you state some hunters would not be. Not every Seattelite is a an out of touch dot com’r with no real connection to Americas wild places. In fact, most I work with come from rural areas (like myself) and are transplants here with roots back in the places where everyday life involves interacting with wildlife, some of it potentially dangerous.

I know what it looks like when someone like myself who lives on Bainbridge Island currently agrees with and argues for something like this on the surface. The reality is, I grew up a good chunk of my life in rural New England and have lived in MT, CO and ID. My connection to those wild places is real. The true reality is, my connection to Seattle is not. I am a visitor here, wishing daily to get back to the places and people I connect best with.

That said, the other reality is that I do not live in those places now and am aware that what I am arguing for would impact those that due in ways I cannot fully comprehend from where I sit today. I get that and do believe those folks should have an outsized say in how this happens…if it ever does. You might find more folks in those areas might have an open mind than you think. It’s not going to be the majority but probably a bigger percentage than you might expect based of course on how it’s handled. One example could be southern New England and the black bear issue they are dealing with now. Growing up, we had the occasional black bear in the garbage and chicken coup but it was a once or twice a year deal. These days, my parents push bears off their property multiple times a week. Bears that get into their chickens, gardens, compost, etc. They’ve broken into their covered porch, sent the dog to the vet with multiple puncture wounds, etc. The shotgun stays in the living room during the day and their bedroom at night because firing off a few shots in the air seems to be the only thing that runs them off consistently (but not always). Yet, they wouldn’t have it any other way. They don’t have to live where they live. Dealing with wildlife is something they continue to have to adapt to. However, living in a place with those things is a big part of the appeal. Many of their neighbors feel the same.

All that said, I agree there will be conflict. I agree some bears will die. I agree, it’s concerning they may be mostly cut-off from other populations. I think this may not (not will not) work but I’d be interested to see how it plays out. I do have an affinity for bears (surprise, surprise). I have contacted both black bears and grizzlies/coastal brown bears both on my land (only black) and recreating (both) and I was equally fascinated and on edge during those encounters. The NCE is one of the last places in the US where a viable population of grizzlies might be able to survive. The rest of their historic range is caput for the most part. I’d love to see an experimental population given a shot. If it works out great. It could benefit them (locals as well) in the long run. It might be a complete disaster. IMO…just an opinion, we should give it a shot.

Sorry, for the book. I had a 35 minute wait for the ferry in Seattle so had some time on my hands. Commuting sucks….

 

[Brute]

I agree with most of what you said but there are some broad generalizations there.

Not every Seattelite would be for this for the same reasons you state some hunters would not be. Not every Seattelite is a an out of touch dot com’r with no real connection to Americas wild places. In fact, most I work with come from rural areas (like myself) and are transplants here with roots back in the places where everyday life involves interacting with wildlife, some of it potentially dangerous.

I know what it looks like when someone like myself who lives on Bainbridge Island currently agrees with and argues for something like this on the surface. The reality is, I grew up a good chunk of my life in rural New England and have lived in MT, CO and ID. My connection to those wild places is real. The true reality is, my connection to Seattle is not. I am a visitor here, wishing daily to get back to the places and people I connect best with.

That said, the other reality is that I do not live in those places now and am aware that what I am arguing for would impact those that due in ways I cannot fully comprehend from where I sit today. I get that and do believe those folks should have an outsized say in how this happens…if it ever does. You might find more folks in those areas might have an open mind than you think. It’s not going to be the majority but probably a bigger percentage than you might expect based of course on how it’s handled. One example could be southern New England and the black bear issue they are dealing with now. Growing up, we had the occasional black bear in the garbage and chicken coup but it was a once or twice a year deal. These days, my parents push bears off their property multiple times a week. Bears that get into their chickens, gardens, compost, etc. They’ve broken into their covered porch, sent the dog to the vet with multiple puncture wounds, etc. The shotgun stays in the living room during the day and their bedroom at night because firing off a few shots in the air seems to be the only thing that runs them off consistently (but not always). Yet, they wouldn’t have it any other way. They don’t have to live where they live. Dealing with wildlife is something they continue to have to adapt to. However, living in a place with those things is a big part of the appeal. Many of their neighbors feel the same.

All that said, I agree there will be conflict. I agree some bears will die. I agree, it’s concerning they may be mostly cut-off from other populations. I think this may not (not will not) work but I’d be interested to see how it plays out. I do have an affinity for bears (surprise, surprise). I have contacted both black bears and grizzlies/coastal brown bears both on my land (only black) and recreating (both) and I was equally fascinated and on edge during those encounters. The NCE is one of the last places in the US where a viable population of grizzlies might be able to survive. The rest of their historic range is caput for the most part. I’d love to see an experimental population given a shot. If it works out great. It could benefit them (locals as well) in the long run. It might be a complete disaster. IMO…just an opinion, we should give it a shot.

Sorry, for the book. I had a 35 minute wait for the ferry in Seattle so had some time on my hands. Commuting sucks….

Jet ski?...we almost bought a house on Bainbridge years ago...I was going to get a jet ski...