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

[Paige]

What are they going to eat? Our migratory ungulate populations are pitiful.

Nature and the eco system will figure that out, Grizzlies have been in the north cascades for decades. If the habitat will support them they will survive if not then they wont.

Fuck the weak that dont enter the wild in the first place.

 

[Billy]

Nature and the eco system will figure that out, Grizzlies have been in the north cascades for decades. If the habitat will support them they will survive if not then they wont.

Fuck the weak that dont enter the wild in the first place.

I think my point is more they will migrate out and cause conflict. We have twice as many people as Montana and Idaho combined.

 

[Divad]

Can we train them first to eat the folk that leave garbage in the woods?

I don't care if its a wrapper, cig butt or pile of crap, all would be a welcomed reason.

 

[Bass-O-Matic]

I'm comfortable with them eating people to be honest. The issue is it's far more likely the wrong people get eaten.

 

[FinLuver]

What are they going to eat? Our migratory ungulate populations are pitiful.

Did ya happen to read my comment…
The human populous is quite abundant and lack skills for the wilderness.

 

[Mossback]

An omnivore can survive...

 

[FinLuver]

I think my point is more they will migrate out and cause conflict. We have twice as many people as Montana and Idaho combined.

King’s Table All ya Can Eat Buffet.

 

[Mossback]

I think my point is more they will migrate out and cause conflict. We have twice as many people as Montana and Idaho combined.

Most of the Washington State population is not in grizzly habitat...or proposed grizzly habitat.

 

[Zissou Intern]

Whatever your stance is regarding the reintroduction of grizzlies to the North Cascades, the public comment period closes November 13.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=112008&documentID=132104

Some estimates say that there are currently five to ten grizzlies residing in the North Cascades. Under the proposed plan, the agency will reintroduce seven to ten bears over the next five to ten years, with the goal of establishing a population of 25 animals. The long term goal is 200 bears in 60 to 100 years.

 

[Rob Allen]

It should be illegal for any planted animals to be listed under ESA. This idea is completely stupid and will get people killed and maimed.
Yes, absolutely Grizzlies are awesome and there are plenty of them and their population is growing and spreading naturally. Some people need to come to the realization that the world is altered and is mostly human habitat and that no matter how good their intentions are, that will never change.

 

[Wade Rivers]

Happy extra early morning everyone!

In my opinion it's not too late, and we won't really know unless we try. The process will be messy... yes someone eventually will be hurt by a bear, but the prospects are slim. People are more of a threat to people than wildlife plus we all take risks every time we get in a driftboat with our buddy on the oars

The ecosystem needs apex predators. Bears, bull trout, wolves, orcas and bald eagles come to mind.

My $0.02, WR

 

[Billy]

There is actually a state law prohibiting this: So it would be a fed thing...I wonder why we have this state law?

 

[_WW_]

This is all very simple. All we have to do is look to Yellowstone and what happens there. We just have to advertise where the bears are and the tourons will line up to...er..."feed" the bears.

Some of societies idiots will be removed from the gene pool and the bears will be well fed.

 

[dirty dog]

I have fished in WA, ID, and MT all in areas where there were grizzly bears, all without a firearm.
When I'm walking down that trail through the brush and I can't see 10 ft in front of me I would rather come face to face with the big bear than a momma moose.
I have lived and worked in bear country for most of my life and I have yet to have any trouble with my brother the bear. Yet !!!!!

 

[Brian Miller]

When recreating in bear country, I've always carried a .30-06 and kept my wits about me. I like the immersion and the clarity that being out there brings. People who aren't prepared shouldn't be out there until they are.

Over the years I have carried bear spray in a chest pouch when in Grizzly country that is statistically about as, or more effective depending on who you listen to so I could have more capacity for climbing and fishing gear.
But you do you.

There is actually a state law prohibiting this:
View attachment 89019

I support the intent of RCW 77.12.035.

I think my point is more they will migrate out and cause conflict. We have twice as many people as Montana and Idaho combined.

Washington has 2.54 times as many people as Montana and Idaho combined.
However the proposed North Cascades Grizzly Recovery Zone appears to be disproportionately sized in the Fed's Habitat Plan when compared to the tri-state population distribution.
And this map also shows the outward migration of bears from their original recovery zones.

Habitat Plan For Northern Continental Divide Grizzlies Released

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — U.S. wildlife officials have released a recovery plan for an estimated 1,000 grizzly bears in Montana — the largest grizzly…

www.mtpr.org

Now I would support a Unicorn Recovery Plan with a transplant management model

 

[Jake Watrous]

Over the years I have carried bear spray in a chest pouch when in Grizzly country that is statistically about as, or more effective depending on who you listen to so I could have more capacity for climbing and fishing gear.
But you do you.

Having been charged by a grizzly in Alaska (thank goodness it was a bluff charge), I'll start carrying bear spray when it's effective beyond 50 yards and not a paltry 10 yards. If I recall correctly, it takes about 2-3 seconds to respond with bear spray or a rifle, and a grizzly can cover 50 yards in about 3 seconds. I'm more sure of my aim with a rifle than a spray can, especially in a crunch situation, and it's effective to 200 yards--which could give me 12 seconds, give or take. That's several aimed bullets down range.

Am I safer with a rifle than a bear spray when faced with a charging grizzly? I sure feel safer, and hope to never put it to the test. I do know that if you read the bear spray materials, they all say to use it when the bear is meandering towards you. They're fairly quiet about its effectiveness when they're pissed and charging. Personally, I meander away when they meander towards me.

Having carried dozens of pounds of camera equipment in the heat of the desert on top of my regular gear, a rifle doesn't seem to add too much weight to hiking, fishing, or hunting equipment the few times a year I’m in grizzly country, and as for climbing...I'll leave that to folks without a crippling fear of heights.

 

[Jim F.]

I think my point is more they will migrate out and cause conflict. We have twice as many people as Montana and Idaho combined.

I wonder why there aren't more than a "few" Grizzlies in the Northern Cascades. Could it be that a few is all the area will support?

 

[Salmo_g]

I wonder why there aren't more than a "few" Grizzlies in the Northern Cascades. Could it be that a few is all the area will support?

I think you've captured the essence of it all, right there. No one has been preventing the NC grizzly bears from increasing in population. If the habitat were suitable, there would already be more bears there. Given that no one's killed one since 1967, they've had 56 years to produce some offspring. I think the few grizzlys in the NC are BC animals that wander south into WA and then return to a more productive home range in BC.

 

[Brian Miller]

Whatever your stance is regarding the reintroduction of grizzlies to the North Cascades, the public comment period closes November 13.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=112008&documentID=132104

Some estimates say that there are currently five to ten grizzlies residing in the North Cascades. Under the proposed plan, the agency will reintroduce seven to ten bears over the next five to ten years, with the goal of establishing a population of 25 animals. The long term goal is 200 bears in 60 to 100 years.

Thanks for the link. I responded basically the same way I did in the recent Grizzly Attack (Another one) thread and earlier in this one, minus the Unicorn quip.

 

[Jim F.]

Unfortunately dissenting comments likely won't be heeded, particularly those from folks who live/farm/ranch in the adjacent areas and who stand to be adversely impacted by the reintroduction. I suspect that the majority of those supporting reintroduction as well as the decision-makers don't live anywhere near the Northern Cascades and won't have any skin in the game if/when things go south. But then again, the reintroduced Wolves didn't pose any issues and they stayed right where they were released . . .