Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Grizzly Bear Restoration in North Cascades
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3579 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 2:15 am 
Bernardo wrote:
And if there are only 1,500 bears, one death per year is a pretty high lethality rate.
Actually you are incorrect because you only considered the last seven years. Instead, let's go back to 1960 and count the deaths per decade by grizzly bears in the Lower 48. 1960s - 2 1970s - 2 1980s - 8 1990s - 2 2000s - 1 2010s - 7 Total =22 deaths by grizzly bear attacks in the Lower 48 in the last 57 years, which is an average of 0.385 per year. You will notice how the numbers go up and down, because that is how these things are. Essentially you used too small of a sample size, focusing on the last seven years, especially considering that the previous seven years (2003 - 2009) had zero deaths. It is also an example of the Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy by drawing your bulls-eye around seven years with a death per year as opposed to the previous seven years.
Bernardo wrote:
It's not irrational to be concerned about an encounter with a grizzly if you are likely to have such an encounter.
I haven't written people should not be concerned about an encounter with a grizzly. (I would also note you have not even defined what you mean by encounter.) I have written that some individuals have an irrational fear of grizzly attack based on the likelihood of it happening. From the Washington Post article link to by Tom above: Researchers, led by Vincenzo Penteriani, found that while attacks on humans by large carnivores were increasing, they remained “extremely rare events,” made to seem more common by hyped media coverage, “causing increased fear and negative attitudes towards coexisting with and conserving these species.”
Bernardo wrote:
Very likely the only real way to avoid fatalities, is to avoid encounters and the only way to avoid encounters is through voluntary or non-voluntary restrictions.
Well yea, if you never go mountain climbing you will never fall off the mountain. If you never go into avalanche terrain you will never be killed in an avalanche. If you never swim in the ocean you will never be killed by a shark or box jellyfish. If you never go hiking in the woods you will never get lost in the woods. I will finish this off with a couple more tidbits from the WaPo article: While bears seem to be adapting well to living near humans, scientists say that humans are less accommodating. For most experts, the solution is to educate the public in areas that have high or growing bear populations on how to safely coexist with the bears. That was the conclusion of a scholarly study published in Scientific Reports in February, entitled “Human behaviour can trigger large carnivore attacks in developed countries,” which generally argued that the problem was not the animals but the humans. And: “We have more people, we have more bears, and we have more people living in bear habitat.” Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
hikersarenumber1
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2015
Posts: 466 | TRs | Pics
hikersarenumber1
Member
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 7:37 am 
Bernardo wrote:
You are lucky you didn't see a bear while hiking given how dangerous they are! Just kidding. My point is really that grizzlies are very dangerous animals. There are relatively few deaths, because there aren't that many encounters, not because they are docile. There are only 1,500 in the U.S. yet they kill someone every year. That's a very dangerous animal. You may be ok with that, but I don't think we should downplay how dangerous they are.
Possibly, I never encountered one in the backcountry because I look precautions? As for encounters as a whole, there are quite a few front country encounters, and plenty of people doing stupid sh## like getting out of their vehicles to get closer until the Rangers show up to police the situation...I would say almost daily or more during bear season. So here we have an animal that humans eradicated from the majority of it range out of fear. In the places that this animal remains, either extremely remote wilderness or highly visited national parks, about one person a year is killed in a grizzly encounter, often times due to a mistake or idiot behavior on the part of the human... Meanwhile, the most common cause of death in the wilderness has nothing to do with bears, and a much larger number of people continue to kill themselves off in other ways.. falls, avalanches... Maybe support global warming cause eventually less snow means less avalanches... less death... this is especially funny coming from a group that is typically opposed to "taming" the wilderness with things like historic chalets and bridges...

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2174 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 9:46 am 
This conversation is useful because it shows how difficult it is to discuss this issue straightforwardly. Can we at least agree it would make sense to estimate how often an "encounter" results in a fatality? Estimates might differ but if we had an estimate we could have a fair conversation about the cost of grizzly reintroduction. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but recent years reflect the current and future situation better than older years. You estimated that there were about .625 deaths per year since 2000. If that's the case, that's still an extraordinary lethality for such a small number of animals. Their former range is irrelevant. Most, if not all the deaths, seem within the bounds of reasonable human behavior likely to be repeated in the Cascades. Why not own it? Admit the animals are very dangerous and that you are ok with some people getting killed in order to have this apex omnivore back in the ecosystem. I am not predicting wholesale carnage, just one death in the Cascades every decade or so, though I suspect this low number would only be achieved with a lot of restrictions aimed at lowering encounters. These restrictions might be called "learning to live with bears." When the facts or estimates are laid out fairly, we can have a vote and figure out how the whole population feels about the balance of costs and benefits. Some might argue that one death is too many or the restrictions too onerous. I don't think that's irrational. It's their right to hold that preference.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 10:20 am 
Bernardo wrote:
Why not own it? Admit the animals are very dangerous and that you are ok with some people getting killed in order to have this apex omnivore back in the ecosystem.
I am okay with this, as long as other supporters of introduction are okay with individual humans carrying guns and using them to save their own lives when necessary.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 10:52 am 
A grizzly encounter is obviously more likely to turn out negatively for a human than a black bear encounter. Grizzlies are larger and less likely to run away. Evolution has taught the black bear it is inferior to a number of predators, and they act like it, often showing extreme caution and usually fleeing close encounters. The grizzly has considerably less evolutionary pressure to fear anything. That said, I still say bring em back. Scare some of the crowds away.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3579 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 10:58 am 
Klapton wrote:
Bernardo wrote:
Why not own it? Admit the animals are very dangerous and that you are ok with some people getting killed in order to have this apex omnivore back in the ecosystem.
I am okay with this, as long as other supporters of introduction are okay with individual humans carrying guns and using them to save their own lives when necessary.
I think this is already the case. Am I missing something? I would only point out that the recommended method to defend oneself is bear spray rather than a gun. There are exceptions to this. I understand that at the Gates to the Arctic NP and Kobuk Valley NP the preferred defence is bear spray plus a shotgun using slugs. Regardless, here is a blurb about one fellow carrying a gun experience: Rick Cross, September 7, 2014, Kananaskis Country, Alberta Canada (near Calgary), Cross, a hunter, was killed by a mother bear when he accidentally got between her and her cubs. Park rangers stated that it appeared that Cross managed to fire his rifle before being overwhelmed. He was discovered with a knife clenched in each hand. His body was found near his backpack, but the corpse was only identified by his boots. RCMP said it appeared he wandered into the area where the mother and cub were feeding on a dead deer. I'm not saying bear spray would have saved him, but his firearm and knives didn't either. Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2174 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 12:33 pm 
Well since we "know" that guns don't work, and we don't want bears getting shot anyway, the logical best thing to do is to restrict access where encounters are likely. Also, we'll need a criminal inquiry when bears do get shot to determine if the killing was warranted. The reality is firearm defence as envisioned by Klapton is not at all simple even if technically legal. It would also be very onerous and dangerous to have more armed hikers. So that's not an ideal compromise for many probably on both sides of the issue. But it would work for some.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 12:57 pm 
When talking about most black bears, one needs to remember that they are hunted. My theory of seeing them in the woods is that bear hunting helps keep them "shy" when it comes to being around people. For me, it is usual to only see their hind end as they run away. There were two closer times, but the bears finally took off in those two cases. Park bears are a whole different animal.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3579 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 1:13 pm 
Bernardo wrote:
Can we at least agree it would make sense to estimate how often an "encounter" results in a fatality? Estimates might differ but if we had an estimate we could have a fair conversation about the cost of grizzly reintroduction.
Yes! Define what you mean by encounter, then gather and arrange your data. But that won't be the only statistic we consider. We will consider the likelihood of an "encounter" as well. We should quantify what activities amount to "it's your own damn fault" or at the very least contributory to the attack. Things like mtn bike riding, trail running, and photography fall into "your own damn fault" category. Hunting would be in the contributing to the attack category. There are also the people killed in campgrounds which are notorious for having dirty campsites, i.e. campsites which people have been careless with food, thus attracting bears and other critters.
Bernardo wrote:
Most, if not all the deaths, seem within the bounds of reasonable human behavior likely to be repeated in the Cascades.
If you look at all the incidents, you will notice that a high percentage of them involve these risk enhancing human behavior. According to this study about large carnivore attacks: Remarkably, risk-enhancing human behaviour has been involved in at least half of the well-documented attacks (47.6%). From highest to lowest, the five most common human behaviours occurring at the time of an attack were (a) parents leaving children unattended, (b) walking an unleashed dog, (c) searching for a wounded large carnivore during hunting, (d) engaging in outdoor activities at twilight/night and (e) approaching a female with young. These are clearly risk-enhancing behaviours when sharing the landscape with large carnivores. For example, the most frequently recorded human behaviour was children left unattended (47.3%), which were most often attacked by cougars (50.8% of the attacks), coyotes (27.9%) and black bears (13.2%). Risk-enhancing human behaviour is not the sole reason behind large carnivore attacks on humans. The causes of the other half of the attacks do not seem to be related to risk-enhancing human behaviour, for example, accidentally walking close to a mother with young or to a carcass with a bear nearby or an encounter with a food-conditioned individual (which is an indirect result of a risk-enhancing human behaviour.
Bernardo wrote:
recent years reflect the current and future situation better than older years.
Really? Justify that claim. Recent years data only make sense if you also consider the changes in the situation in recent years. More people engaged in outdoor activities within bear habitat is certainly a huge factor as it the increase in bear population.
Bernardo wrote:
Their former range is irrelevant.
What do you mean it is irrelevant? And again, justify and quantify that claim.
Bernardo wrote:
Why not own it? Admit the animals are very dangerous and that you are ok with some people getting killed in order to have this apex omnivore back in the ecosystem.
I have never denied that grizzly/brown bears are powerful and dangerous animals. I have and continue to assert that the likelihood of a fatal interaction is rare. Thus our fears of them are exaggerated beyond the actual risk. But if you want to be that way about it, why don't you "own it"? Own that you want to go play in your mountainous sandbox and pretend it is "wild" even without all its wild animals, especially the ones which might kill you.
Bernardo wrote:
I don't think that's irrational. It's their right to hold that preference.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion/preference. But whether or not their opinion is rational, reasoned, and fact based is another issue altogether. I will tell you I have a pimal fear of grizzly/brown bears. I am scared witless by them. I have nightmares of grizzly bears chasing me and stuff. Really! I grew up reading Field and Stream and Sports Afield with their cover art depicting fearsome bears and cougars and such. I read their stories of bear and cougar attacks. I watched films like The Night of the Grizzly, Man in the Wilderness, Grizzly, The Edge, Grizzly Rage, etc. ...
I also know that my fear is greatly exaggerated beyond the actual risk. I own my own fears and don't pretend that they are accurate and reflect reality. They are just my fears. So yea, I am willing to put aside my fears in the hope that in a small way we might restore some wild back into the wilderness which we killed off. And that means that if we want to go where the wild things are (apologies to Maurice Sendak), we might have to change our lackadaisical attitude and be more aware of how we travel there. Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 1:53 pm 
Bernardo wrote:
Well since we "know" that guns don't work,
If your gun does not work, you are doing it wrong.
Quote:
and we don't want bears getting shot anyway, the logical best thing to do is to restrict access where encounters are likely. Also, we'll need a criminal inquiry when bears do get shot to determine if the killing was warranted. The reality is firearm defence as envisioned by Klapton is not at all simple even if technically legal. It would also be very onerous and dangerous to have more armed hikers.
Why is it dangerous to have more armed hikers? If you carried a firearm, would you behave irresponsibly with it? Does having a gun suddenly make someone more violent or irresponsible? This fear is irrational.
Quote:
So that's not an ideal compromise for many probably on both sides of the issue. But it would work for some.
Yes, it would. Especially those who are actually competent in the use of guns. There are no guarantees, of course. I'm sure the anecdote cited above is very real. If you stumble on a mother grizzly and her cubs, you're gonna have a bad time.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
hikersarenumber1
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2015
Posts: 466 | TRs | Pics
hikersarenumber1
Member
PostSat Jan 21, 2017 2:38 pm 
Guns are a moot point. They are allowed. You are allowed to shoot a bear that is charging you or attacking you. Guns are not the recommended method of bear safety because bear spray works better and it is non lethal, to both bears and humans. So stop trying to make this about guns, please. The bottom line is that grizzly bears should be in wilderness that they are indigenous to even if it inconveniences your recreation. No areas should be closed. People should be educated. People are truly showing their hypocrisy, here...

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostSun Jan 22, 2017 9:01 am 
For those who don't know why bear spray is recommended over guns, a bullet will almost never stop an angry bear before it gets to you, and of course will make it more angry than it already was. And bear claws can do enormous damage very quickly, even if the bear was mortally wounded. Bear spray that gets in the bears eyes will generally stop a bear in its tracks because not being able to see is far more baffling than the pain of being shot. But the big "if" there is getting it in the eyes. If you are a bad aim in your panic, or if it is windy, or of the spray is packed away and not instantly accessible, then bear spray will do you no good. Keeping the spray handy is a bit of a hassle. A gun will also do you no good if you panic too much, but the bullet is not affected by wind. In order for a gun to work reliably you would have to shoot the bear when it is so far away that you are not in imminent danger, especially given how often bears do bluff charges. So the concern with guns is that there would be unnecessary bear deaths, especially given how exaggerated the irrational fear of bears is. If you are going to take spray with you somewhere you should consider buying an extra canister and practicing with one somewhere very remote. You need to know how narrow it comes out (it's not a wide fog, it's a narrow stream) and how far it sprays. The likelihood of successfully defending yourself with bear spray when you've never sprayed it is much less because most likely you will only get one chance for a successful hit. I suppose it would be like defending yourself with a gun if you have never ever fired one. I've had a grizzly encounter, in Alaska. It was wide open tundra and the berries were at their peak. She even had a cub with her, but I was not between them, and in the open tundra there were no surprises. I assume she saw me long before I saw her. I had my spray with me, in a holster hanging across my chest. It was quite a rush, but the bear neither ran away (like most of the black bears I've seen) nor paid me any attention. She just gorged away on the soap berries. At it's closest it was about 80 yards away from me. I had already set up camp and decided not to move.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostSun Jan 22, 2017 12:59 pm 
Tom wrote:
Maybe Schroder is referring to this? Looks like 2010.
I got it wrong when I looked it up. We were told of two incidents while we were in the park. One was about two hunters attacked while we were there: 2 Montana bowhunters survive bear attacks the other was of the hiker's body that was found the previous fall. We were told to carry bear spray on all trails. Never saw a single bear during our 10 day visit.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Frank
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Posts: 318 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snohomish
Frank
Member
PostMon Jan 23, 2017 4:37 pm 
The Skagit River Interpretive Center will host a grizzly bear restoration presentation at 1 p.m. Jan 29 at 52809 Rockport Park Road Howard Miller Steelhead Park. Sponsored by Friends the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Coalition

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Kascadia
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2014
Posts: 648 | TRs | Pics
Kascadia
Member
PostMon Jan 30, 2017 3:05 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
A grizzly encounter is obviously more likely to turn out negatively for a human than a black bear encounter. Grizzlies are larger and less likely to run away. Evolution has taught the black bear it is inferior to a number of predators, and they act like it, often showing extreme caution and usually fleeing close encounters. The grizzly has considerably less evolutionary pressure to fear anything
It is my understanding that grizzly bears evolved in more open country where fleeing provided them no advantage. Aggressively responding to threats did however, and selection exerted itself. Black bears evolved in more wooded/sheltered areas where fleeing provided a selective advantage. If I remember correctly, there were some rather large cats around way back when raising hell. . . And here we are now in the 21st century. I learned this interesting tidbit at the recent presentation about "living" with bears in the back country, which also had some very interesting presentations by other biologists studying bears in the back country (including N. Cascades).

It is as though I had read a divine text, written into the world itself, not with letters but rather with essential objects, saying: Man, stretch thy reason hither, so thou mayest comprehend these things. Johannes Kepler
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Grizzly Bear Restoration in North Cascades
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum