Forum Index > Stewardship > Grizzly Bear Restoration in North Cascades
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8815 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSat Feb 14, 2015 9:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yup and in the 1990s, timber sale contracts in the Okanogan area started requiring food (lunches) be kept locked up away from those soon to arrive grizzlies. 

What happened?   confused.gif

--------------
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 479 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
  Top

Member
PostSat Feb 14, 2015 11:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
....and in the 1990s, timber sale contracts in the Okanogan area started requiring food (lunches) be kept locked up away from those soon to arrive grizzlies....

BULLSH*T!!

More made-up TW crap, as usual....

I worked for the FS in Okanogan from the late 70s to early 2000s.  There was NO such specific requirement in FS contracts for Grizz.
(there may have been some vague general guidelines about keeping food away from all wildlife - which is/has always been a good idea, right?).

I know this because I put a lot of those contracts together!!!

I'll donate $100 to any non-profit of TWs choice when a contract provision from a timber sale contract of that era - with that specific mention for Grizz - is presented here.

If not presented by Feb 28, 2015, then TW has to send $100 to a non-profit of MY choice.

Deal - OK?  If not...then please SHUT UP.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lookout Billerina
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Sep 2014
Posts: 268 | TRs

Lookout Billerina
  Top

Member
PostSat Feb 14, 2015 11:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chicken Heart wrote:  "I'm uncertain that intentionally reintroducing a lethal animal is a great idea. Surely their numbers outside of the US mainland can support the species, and enough increase in numbers down here to impact the overall count will increase risks to humans here."

Yes, BY ALL MEANS let's keep the world safe for humans to do whatever they want!!  GOD told you in the Bible that you shall have Dominion over the Earth, the fowl, and GD everything else, right?

It is soooooooooooo important that your backyard playground be made SAFE for you to play in, and nothing shall be allowed to creep back in that might...MIGHT...cause you the slightest amount of worry or (GASP!!!!) risk.

Yes, their numbers may be sufficient to maintain the species in Canada, but Lordy, Lordy, we sure can't have any of them daring to step across that arbitrary border line, can we?  They might cause some children to be scared!!!!

Here's one thing I am absolutely certain of, that attitude is despicable in the extreme.  Go back to your corner and cower.

Just my opinion of course.

Oh by the way, did you know that WOLVERINES are increasing their numbers in Washington?  LOOK OUT!!!  You might get bit!  Everyone knows they're MEAN sumb1tches.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8815 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 7:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy wrote:
treeswarper wrote:
....and in the 1990s, timber sale contracts in the Okanogan area started requiring food (lunches) be kept locked up away from those soon to arrive grizzlies....

BULLSH*T!!

More made-up TW crap, as usual....

I worked for the FS in Okanogan from the late 70s to early 2000s.  There was NO such specific requirement in FS contracts for Grizz.
(there may have been some vague general guidelines about keeping food away from all wildlife - which is/has always been a good idea, right?).

I know this because I put a lot of those contracts together!!!

We were told it was part of the griz program.  It was stupid, whatever it was for.

I don't have the system to look it up, so you'll have to do so.  Look at whatever sales were put together for the Okanogan Highlands around 1993ish.  It would be a C provision.  It was put into contracts about the time the griz program was being talked about more.

I don't bet like that.  You go ahead and put your own money where you want it.

I'll donate $100 to any non-profit of TWs choice when a contract provision from a timber sale contract of that era - with that specific mention for Grizz - is presented here.

If not presented by Feb 28, 2015, then TW has to send $100 to a non-profit of MY choice.

Deal - OK?  If not...then please SHUT UP.

We were told it was part of the griz program.  It was stupid, whatever it was for.

I don't have the system to look it up, so you'll have to do so.  Look at whatever sales were put together for the Okanogan Highlands around 1993ish.  It would be a C provision.  It was put into contracts about the time the griz program was becoming more stylish.  I don't know if it was eventually thrown out or not, but it existed.

I don't bet like that.  You go ahead and put your own money where you want it.  Nice try to make someboy "shut up".  I don't post bullsh##, unless your definition is anything you don't like to hear.

--------------
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
33teeth
Member
Member


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 418 | TRs

33teeth
  Top

Member
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 9:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm curious where we draw the line.  This isn't about restoring a species or its ability to survive.

Should we try to restore any creature which may have wandered this planet if science and technology allow it?  Sabretooth perhaps?  Only ones which were in a specific region on or after a certain date?

There's a group of people working to restore Measles to its natural habitat, so we've got that going for us.

--------------
Is that a kind of beer?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2542 | TRs
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
  Top

Member
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 11:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
33teeth wrote:
This isn't about restoring a species or its ability to survive.

Except that it is; Grizzlies thrived in the North Cascades before we wiped them out in the region.
33teeth wrote:
Should we try to restore any creature which may have wandered this planet if science and technology allow it?  Sabretooth perhaps?  Only ones which were in a specific region on or after a certain date? 

Restoring a living animal to habitat we have driven it out of is completely different from bringing completely extinct species back from the dead. This is not to say that we should not restore extinct species. I think it is our duty as a sentient species to undo as much of the harm we have done to the planet over the years as possible, and that includes the resurrection of species such as Mammoths, Tasmanian Tigers, and the Passenger Pigeon. Efforts are underway to restore all the aforementioned species, and there is even an experiment called Pleistocene Park underway in Russia which aims to recreate an ice age steppe ecosystem that disappeared after the grazing animals that maintained it were hunted into extinction or extreme scarcity by early humans. In the short term it means reintroducing extirpated species such as wild horses, bison, etc., Long term plans call for the possible reintroduction of Mammoths and other extinct species.

--------------
Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
33teeth
Member
Member


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 418 | TRs

33teeth
  Top

Member
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 1:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
NacMacFeegle wrote:
Except that it is; Grizzlies thrived in the North Cascades before we wiped them out in the region.

Well, yeah.  But they're doing just fine elsewhere.  They don't need to live in the North Cascades to continue surviving in plentiful numbers.

What if we were talking about a disease carrying pest?  Do we spend money and time restoring them to their habitat?

Where is the line drawn.  How far back in history do you go?

At one end of the argument, if you never draw a line, humans should eliminate themselves and all traces of themselves from the planet.

--------------
Is that a kind of beer?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7166 | TRs
Location: The Hermitage
Bedivere
  Top

Why Do Witches Burn?
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 3:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lookout Billerina wrote:
...blah blah exaggeration strawman blah blah...

Here's one thing I am absolutely certain of, that attitude is despicable in the extreme.  Go back to your corner and cower.

Just my opinion of course.

Oh by the way, did you know that WOLVERINES are increasing their numbers in Washington?  LOOK OUT!!!  You might get bit!  Everyone knows they're MEAN sumb1tches.

I agree with 33teeth and it has nothing to do with anything the bible says.  It has everything do do with my own selfish desires.  See, I can admit that I'm selfish and want certain things certain ways for my own convenience.  I'm not even ashamed of it and I don't care whether you think it's despicable or not.

There are several places in the lower 48 states where you can go hiking in Grizzly habitat if that's what you want to do.  Glacier National Park, Yellowstone, and portions of Northern Idaho to name the most prominent.

I'm very happy to have my own corner of the world with spectacular mountains in it where I don't have to worry about Grizzlies and the inconvenience and bother of the special measures you need to take in Grizz habitat.  There are plenty of Grizz left in the world, reintroducing them to the N. Cascades doesn't really serve any purpose from the standpoint of preserving the species.

That's my particular take on it.  Feel free to disagree but you'll be far more likely to sway me to your point of view with reasoned arguments free of insults and silly, emotional outbursts and exaggerations.  If calling me names is the best you can do, well, carry on.

--------------
Photo Portfolio
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2542 | TRs
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
  Top

Member
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 7:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'd be lying if I didn't admit to there being a selfish part of me that is happy to have the convenience of a grizzly-free North Cascades; not having to bother with all the annoying precautions one must take in grizzly country, and having at least the illusion of safety, because I would also be lying if I didn't admit to a little primal fear now and then that something large and hairy is going to eat me in my sleeping bag like a sweaty hot-dog!  eek.gif

Despite this I still support reintroduction of grizzlies, because I care about the long term health of the North Cascades and its many ecosystems. I see their reintroduction as not so much a benefit to the species (although it certainly is one), but as a step in restoring and maintaining the North Cascades in as pristine and natural a way as possible.

--------------
Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Daryl
Big Shot Economist



Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 1817 | TRs

Daryl
  Top

Big Shot Economist
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 8:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
In other national parks some trails are frequently closed because of grizzly bears.  I'd rather that not happen in NCNP.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
cefire
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 520 | TRs

cefire
  Top

Member
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 10:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
I'm uncertain that intentionally reintroducing a lethal animal is a great idea.

mosquitoes are far more "lethal".  Ditto bees, spiders, dogs etc.  I'm not really strongly for or against reintroduction, but the irrational fear expressed in these posts is pretty humorous...  dizzy.gif


On the other hand, I find the point 33teeth brings up is an interesting one.  Where should the line be drawn - how do we choose which animals to reintroduce (e.g., grizz) and which to remove (e.g., mountain goats) from certain areas confused.gif  so far, and probably not unexpectedly, most efforts are focused on the large and furry varieties - will be interesting to see where folks fall when we're talking about the ugly duckling species  clown.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7166 | TRs
Location: The Hermitage
Bedivere
  Top

Why Do Witches Burn?
PostSun Feb 15, 2015 10:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
cefire wrote:
Where should the line be drawn - how do we choose which animals to reintroduce (e.g., grizz) and which to remove (e.g., mountain goats) from certain areas confused.gif

Well, one yardstick that would seem to make sense would be if the species is native to the area in question.   If a native species has been extirpated then steps to reintroduce it can be taken.  If a species is introduced, then extirpation becomes an option.

This tactic makes sense if the goal is to restore the ecosystem of an area to a condition resembling it's state prior to colonization by members of Western cultures.

--------------
Photo Portfolio
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
straydog
slave to a monolith



Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs
Location: North Bend
straydog
  Top

slave to a monolith
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 9:53 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Why *add* risk?

Maybe the more important question is "how much risk is being added?"

Historical records and data suggest it's extremely small... maybe even immeasurable in terms of the total risk associated with camping/hiking.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10757 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 10:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I keep hearing about 'irrational' and 'sensational' claims, but I've seen nothing but expressions of facts and concern for increasing risks to humans.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MadCapLaughs
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 955 | TRs

MadCapLaughs
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 10:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
straydog wrote:
Maybe the more important question is "how much risk is being added?"

Perhaps an even better question would be, "Is there in fact any additional risk at all?"

Grizzlies would certainly affect the other large mammals nearby, including black bear and moose . . . both of which are more dangerous than grizz. Would adding grizzlies reduce risks from other large mammals, thereby negating any risk from themselves? MtnGoat's assumption that grizzlies=more risk is just that: an assumption for which he has provided no evidence. So I think we must question whether it is even true to begin with.

But that quibbling over "risk" completely misses the point. Most important, to me, is how this thread reveals the selfish, me-first attitude that led to their slaughter in the first place. The very terms of this debate are entirely mired in anthropocentrism; the only questions being asked are questions about me me me. No concern for other species, the greater ecosystem, etc. When even those who flock to a hiking community have no qualms about extirpating native species to satisfy their own twisted sense of dominion and entitlement, then I question whether re-introduction may be just a prelude to another slaughter. Perhaps we should focus on changing the myopic egoism on full display here before we precipitate another blood bath.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Grizzly Bear Restoration in North Cascades
  Happy Birthday Klenke!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy