U.S. drafts plan to bring grizzly bears back to Washington’s North Cascades (WAPO)
- Thread starter kmudgn
- Start date
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Deer are the deadliest animals in America, but no one is talking about reintroducing them in popular recreation areas.
Also, for that analogy to work out properly the deer would have to be intentionally put and kept in the middle of the road..
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
I don't see the comparison.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
No. Because it would be dishonest and slanted to their already chosen agenda.
Flymph
Steelhead
I understand your discontent with the Fed. We battled the Army Corp of Engineers and FERC to stall and eventually stop the construction of a Dam on our local river. We had lots of help from many different organizations. In the end it was the local people who turned the tide in our favor. They did listen and it can be done. Understand, this was back in a time when even politically minded opposites came together for a common purpose.
I had no expectations that the Feds would abandon their efforts to transplant Griz into WA. It sounds like they are at least starting with a 25 bear "test" population. But as I recall the "North Cascades Ecosystem" (NCE) extends south to I90 with a neighboring human population more than double of all the other "bear Ecosystems" combined.
Remember that according to Montana FW&P throughout the 201Xs, for every reported human - bear encounter, there was an average of 23% of the humans injured or killed, and 23% of the bears killed. When outward migration occurs, it won't be pretty.
But I suspect, or at least hope that the relocation will begin in the northernmost part of the NCE so I will likely not encounter one while I am still able to (often solo) hike into the backcountry to fish and camp.
Flymph
Steelhead
Brian, with all due respect; why are you not afraid to fish/camp amongst a large population of black bears which statistically, are far more dangerous to humans?
As I stated earlier, I have had 2 fairly to very close surprise encounters with black bears (not carrying bear spray); the 1st and closest being a sow and cub that I managed to see and silently back away from before they saw me. At the 2nd encounter I was able to make myself appear larger by opening my jacket and extending my arms holding hiking poles up at 45° as recommended to make myself look larger and the bear retreated. That option doesn't work with Grizzlies.
Black fight back
Brown lay down
White good night
Bear responses.
The outdoors is not a sanitized playground, petting zoo, or otherwise 'safe space'. There are risks. Don't like the risks, don't take them. I have been a big supporter of wolves, grizz and other top level predators having a restored place in the ecosystem for decades. If I get taken out by one while recreating, oh well...and so it goes.
Without risks, it's not truly a wild place, it is a Disneyfied psuedoexperience, cleaned up for your safety.
There's enough of that type of thing already at your local dog park, or county nature trail.
Go Grizz !!!!
Brown lay down
White good night
Bear responses.
The outdoors is not a sanitized playground, petting zoo, or otherwise 'safe space'. There are risks. Don't like the risks, don't take them. I have been a big supporter of wolves, grizz and other top level predators having a restored place in the ecosystem for decades. If I get taken out by one while recreating, oh well...and so it goes.
Without risks, it's not truly a wild place, it is a Disneyfied psuedoexperience, cleaned up for your safety.
There's enough of that type of thing already at your local dog park, or county nature trail.
Go Grizz !!!!
Wisdom from the easy chair?
The residents of the territory 150 years ago probably disagreed, which is why Griz were extirpated.
I agree with the above sentiment as far as having a sanitized outdoors. I've worked and recreated around bears plenty from here to Alaska and other places. I've been around wolves as well.
My issue is that we are talking about planting a species near 6 million people without the viable food source they once enjoyed. We've effectively killed the salmon conduit that was a major staple and disconnected the Cascades from wilderness areas to the north. So now you've got a species locked in an area with minimal food near a population center. What could go wrong? What's the cost? What's the benefit? I mean as much as I'd love the average Seattle hikers who are into rewilding everything with little thought to get a real dose of reality I just don't see this one ending in anything but tragedy and money spent.
I know this is behind a paywall, but others seem to have a way around and some PNW papers pick up the story as well
This appears to be an update to previous WAPO article that I posted a while back
This appears to be an update to previous WAPO article that I posted a while back
In my view they were wrong then....as are you now.
Just that simple...they did a lot of things in the 1870's that in hindsight were not quite how things are done now, with additional knowledge gained in the interim.
Your comment about wisdom from an easy chair is really amusing...
It's like you've gone full Rob Allen here, always certain often wrong...
Just that simple...they did a lot of things in the 1870's that in hindsight were not quite how things are done now, with additional knowledge gained in the interim.
Your comment about wisdom from an easy chair is really amusing...
It's like you've gone full Rob Allen here, always certain often wrong...
Feds resume study of restoring grizzlies to North Cascades
Environmental groups on Thursday hailed a decision by the Biden administration to resume studying whether grizzly bears should be restored to the remote North Cascades ecosystem in Washington state.
www.kptv.com
Pretty sure the deer already are in popular recreation areas? Does this warrant removing them?
