Forum Index > Stewardship > Grizzly Bear Restoration in North Cascades
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11062 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 11:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
There's no assumption whatsoever. Here is your evidence, which requires nothing more than observation of first principles.

No grizzlies, no grizzly risk.

Add, grizzlies, add risk of grizzlies. There is, in fact, additional risk.

I caution against invoking 'selfishness' in an analysis, since the fact is that wanting anything, even if it's fer or agin' grizzes, is by definition selfish if you want it. Selfish relates to the wanter, not their goals.

Nor do I see any single person justifying their extirpation or slaughter. It seems to me you may be responding reflexively without paying attention to the actual words of folks whom you disagree with.

As for anthrocentrism, you're correct on that. I am concerned about humans, since I am one. I'm not about to be 'improved' by being 'educated' to put people *second*. And if I had no concern for other species, I wouldn't have noted that their extant range may be sufficient for them.

--------------
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
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11062 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 11:51 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lookout Billerina wrote:
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.

I have no idea why you'd invoke God here, it seems you have a problem with religion, worn quite openly I might add. Aimed at an atheist, I might add, which chuckles me a bit.

Is it important that we take account of intentional actions which will increase risks to people? I'd think so, and at least discuss this openly and without the need for histrionics.

I've hiked in grizz country a few times, I know the drill, and the risks. Your presumptions are way off base. The emotion and need to assume, insert, and go a bit ballistic over presumptions of a religious influence are not evidence of measured analysis.

An interesting note....it's always curious to me as an atheist that on average, non religious folks of a certain slant are often much more hostile than Christians when it comes to disagreement.

--------------
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
cefire
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 520 | TRs

cefire
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 2:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
There's no assumption whatsoever. Here is your evidence, which requires nothing more than observation of first principles.

No grizzlies, no grizzly risk.

Add, grizzlies, add risk of grizzlies. There is, in fact, additional risk.

I caution against invoking 'selfishness' in an analysis, since the fact is that wanting anything, even if it's fer or agin' grizzes, is by definition selfish if you want it. Selfish relates to the wanter, not their goals.

Nor do I see any single person justifying their extirpation or slaughter. It seems to me you may be responding reflexively without paying attention to the actual words of folks whom you disagree with.

Not that it will change your certainty in your own personal intuition, but:

Grizzly bears kill an average of 0.5 to 1.0 persons per year across the north american continent.  Attacks (of course this includes only reported attacks) appear around 10 incidents per year.  Of course, both of these are distributed unequally across risk factors such as hunting, irresponsible food storage, captive engagement.

You are without a doubt correct that risk will increase.  This is a logical truism.  Risk would also increase with each dog taken into the backcountry.  In comparison (although of course this comparison is not apples to apples) - dog fatalities across north america average around 30 per year.  Attacks of course, are orders of magnitude higher than 30 per year.

Yes, grizzly attacks will increase - I maintain the fear is entirely irrational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
http://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/trail-news/ask-a-bear-how-many-bear-attacks-really-2/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11062 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 2:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Logical truisms are true, hence proceeding as it they are not, or arguing as if they are not, are both errors generating still more errors. My intuition is not being relied upon, logic is.

I haven't disagreed that the present risk increase may be minimal, nor that other things aren't risky as well. My concern as repeatedly stated, is the issue of adding risks.

I'll also point out that grizzly attack numbers are also related to their distance from and relationship to high populations and traffic areas visitation wise. Increasing their numbers near a high population, high recreation area mere hours from the largest population density in the NW region of the nation may result in risks higher than those previously seen in more remote areas.

Am I arguing grizzly will jump out and eat every third baby and unleashed dog? No. I'm merely interested in the logic of increasing risks and some discussion more rational than someone uncorking a dislike of Christians on the one hand, or being accused of sensationalizing risks by merely noting that grizz can and do kill people.

--------------
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
cefire
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 520 | TRs

cefire
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 2:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^ Agreed, I'd suggest disengaging from the more "passionate" folks when considering the risks/benefits of a proposed idea.  Ideas are independent of their advocates right?  Kind of a foundational rule of argumentation.

So how 'risky' is reintroduction?  You can stick with saying that there will be increased risk, without specifying what you mean by that.  I'm going to be a little more bold and estimate their impact somewhere in the range of 'minimal' to 'undetectable'.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11062 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 3:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Good discussion, your attitude is not confrontational and stays with the point. I like that, makes it worthwhile, thanks.

At the point that a handful of bears is added, I'm sure the risk will remain relatively low. However, if the introduction is successful and mitigation measures work as intended, I don't see how a minimal risk increasing over time is not a direct outcome of a successful reintroduction. There is also the factor of ,over time, an increased range further south into more of the Cascades.

Another issue in terms of impact is the mitigations themselves. Limiting access, placing rules and limits on activities outside park boundaries are also impacts, and I can't imagine that those would decrease. After all, the OP is specifically asking for input on issues like this.

--------------
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
cefire
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 520 | TRs

cefire
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 4:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The numbers I draw from include places where 1) Grizzly bears are thriving, 2) where they are not, 3) populations are close to urban centers, and 4) populations not close to urban centers.

Consider the cherry-picked example of Calgary.  An urban center far larger than Seattle that is within an hour of a "national" park with a reasonable grizzly population.  The park, Banff, likewise is a much larger area than NCNP (but probably comparable to the broader USFS/Wilderness areas surrounding NCNP. A brief search suggests the park has had 4 fatalities in the last 40 years - 3 of these from problem bears that had been very recently relocated from other populations into the park.

More grizzly's = more attacks, but likely at an incredibly small rate.  In my example which seems at least somewhat informative, we might estimate a rate of about 1 fatality per 10 years in the NC ecosystem.

There's still nothing I'm seeing that suggests I should be afraid of the consequences of reintroduction.  Regarding your other point, I'm probably less able to estimate how substantial limitations on recreation would be although I've been to Banff, Ystone, Glacier, Tetons and I've never felt encumbered by restrictions personally; perhaps business owners feel differently, I wouldn't know.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 784 | TRs
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 4:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I believe the Seattle metro area is almost 4X as large as Calgary.   Although I don't know if this would make much of a difference in the frequency of bear attacks.
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
cefire
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 520 | TRs

cefire
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 5:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
hmmmm...everything I saw suggested Calgary was a good deal larger, but its always tough to figure out how to compare "cities" vs. "metropolitan areas" vs. "population centers".  I've never been to Calgary proper so I'm just drawing from the interwebs for this comparison  biggrin.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 784 | TRs
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 7:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ya, I hear you.  There seems to be a million and one ways to categorize population.
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
MadCapLaughs
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 955 | TRs

MadCapLaughs
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 16, 2015 9:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Add, grizzlies, add risk of grizzlies. There is, in fact, additional risk.

Yes, there will be additional (so vanishingly small as to be practically non-existent) risk from grizzlies. But for someone who felt compelled to take a cheap shot at my reading comprehension, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post. So let me spell it out for you.

Yes, reintroduction of grizzlies would increase the risk from grizzlies from zero to more than zero. Duh. But risk from grizzlies is meaningless in isolation, since our actual experience does not take place in isolation. When we are hiking/camping, we are affected by total risk from all dangerous animals combined, not just the risk from grizzlies alone. So if a rising population of grizz results in a declining population of black bears, moose, cougars, etc., then our overall risk of harm from wild animals, the only risk that actually matters to our experience in the real world, might actually decrease.

So your abstract thought experiment does not, in fact, have any implications for what we will experience in the wild.

MtnGoat wrote:
I caution against invoking 'selfishness' in an analysis, since the fact is that wanting anything, even if it's fer or agin' grizzes, is by definition selfish if you want it. Selfish relates to the wanter, not their goals.

Simply wrong. "Selfish" certainly does apply to the goals. If it didn't, that would mean you would consider a American who wanted peace in the Middle East to be selfish. You would consider a Canadian who wanted to end hunger in Bangladesh selfish. Absurd. You're just redefining selfishness in order to tautologically justify shameless egocentrism.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11062 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 17, 2015 9:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Your definition of selfishness deliberately results in relieving the wanter of moral responsibility for their wants. As for your examples, yes those all contain the personal desires of the wanter. Since none of those goals can even exist without the existence of the person desiring them, they are directly and irrevocably tied to the wanter. The wanter *is* getting internal value for their desires, just like any other want they decide upon.

There's nothing at all to be ashamed of about egocentrism, it's the natural state of a living human and required for human existence. Every bite of food you put in your mouth is about you, your actions are about your values and desires. The question is not about wether or not humans are egocentric, they are. It's about the values you choose to express by the actions you take in service of it and wether or not those actions subvert the values and related actions and choices of other wanters.

I hardly took a cheap shot at your reading comprehension, I noted a perfectly valid point about your post, in which you chose to intentionally associated comments about wiping out grizzlies with posters who had made no such comments or implications.

--------------
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
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5198 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 17, 2015 9:25 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Anybody know how many people are injured by deer on an average year? I suspect way more than are injured by Grizzlies. The point is the Grizzly is a magnificent creature and risks to humans with their re-introduction would be so low as to be off the radar.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Daryl
Big Shot Economist



Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 1817 | TRs

Daryl
  Top

Big Shot Economist
PostTue Feb 17, 2015 10:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
First, does the NPS have a surplus of money that they are looking for new ways to increase spending?  I thought they were making cutbacks?

Second, I'm an engineer with an economics minor.  i break things down to cost/benefit/logic.

cefire wrote:
More grizzly's = more attacks, but likely at an incredibly small rate.  In my example which seems at least somewhat informative, we might estimate a rate of about 1 fatality per 10 years in the NC ecosystem.

I'm not an expert, so using what i learned here, one cost will be about one life every 10 years.  not a huge deal if it's not you, but it is a big deal if it's you or someone you know.  So what is a life worth? What else will it cost?  Lots of extra precautions, trail closures (yes, it will happen), and bear bells.  lots f$%!ing bear bells!  Plus the cost to snatch up these bears from their existing homes (who cares if they are happy where they are, we want them somewhere else!) and relocating them to where we think they should be.  then of course there will monitoring and studies, and more studies...  So there is some cost.

What is the benefit?  We get to see some bigger meaner bears?  If the goal is to make the area the way it was, closing hwy 20 would be easier.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11062 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 17, 2015 11:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The goal is to satisfy an aesthetic disguised as a scientific. Grizz have been gone from the NC for quite a while, and the ecosystem has not collapsed, it has adapted. Presuming one state or the other to be preferable from an ecological point of view depends on the values of the observer, something pretty self evident in the content of the defenses and critiques. After all, one poster attempted to invoke shame over egoism on this very topic when it came to analysis of motives, and this shows how deeply embedded the subjective valuation of this issue is within the context of a person's chosen values.

--------------
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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Grizzly Bear Restoration in North Cascades
  Happy Birthday Karen², Midnight Slogger!
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