[NacMacFeegle]

[MtnGoat]

It depends on what you mean by healthy, and that depends on what values you have chosen to define healthy. That the NC must be defined as healthy only by measures relevant to conditions extant prior to the arrival of white people is a value decision, not written on the side of an atom somewhere as THE objective measure of healthy. Me, I see an ecosystem will all parts functioning consistent with conditions sans grizzlies. By my values, that is healthy. I do not view humans as a problem or some slice of time in continually changing conditions which have existed since the earth cooled as ideal just because they predate the arrival of western transplants. For the same reasons, I have a different take on goats in the Olympics than folks hewing to a purist, pre western timeframe. The goats are there now, the time to avoid the risk in the manner being discussed for grizz is long past, and the ecology is adapting...some flora and fauna are being deselected, others are taking advantage of the changes no doubt. I see little reason to engage in the wholesale slaughter of living creatures in order to serve a value system rooted in 'pristine is better'. They're there now, let 'em be. For the same reason, I see little reason to reintroduce grizz to the NC. If they wind up re-expanding their range on their own via adaptation, great.If not, that's fine too. I don't possess some benchmark relating to any particular time or conditions as 'ideal' ecologically speaking, and which must be pursued regardless of human cost. Even the idea of 'interference' from humans carries with it interesting implications I suspect may actually only apply to other humans, and not rocks and not animals. That's something I think I'll spend some time examining. If I stop a rock from rolling, am I interfering with it? Is it wrong? If I move a branch so it rots in one place but not another...did I interfere? What if I keep a snaffehound from snacking on my m&m's...or she changes course because of my presence...interference? hmm. So many questions.

[iron]

you're all missing the point. bear canisters, people! get ready to schlep 'em around like they are starting to require in the lookout mtn (NCNP) area...

[MtnGoat]

Yeah, those were real great in Denali NP. not. hated em.

[NacMacFeegle]

[MtnGoat]

I understand the argument, yes. I don't see humans can be classed as anything but natural, and the same applies to their actions. Of course this leads directly to disagreement with subjective divisions of species into 'invasive' etc, since they all depend on human agency that I can tell.

[NacMacFeegle]

While it is true that we are undeniably linked to the natural world, it is also true that we are capable of altering our environment in ways beyond the capability of any species of animal in the Earth's history. "With great power comes great responsibility" is the cliched phrase that perfectly describes humanity's current situation, for as a sentient race we are responsible for the future of our planet.

[Dalekz]

This really sounds more like a group needing a grant to fund a Job. (who wants to carry bear canisters especially only the APPROVED type, when you might meet one beer in the next 30+ years) Looking at their initial report, Grizzly were found (shot) on the Nooksack R, Okanogan & Columbia Rivers. Back then every possible species of salmon still ran – (no dams or fishery). I just finished reading The Great Bear Rainforest by Ian McAllister (he has an agenda to save the Big Bear, so maybe somewhat slanted) But he made a few observations. 1---- Most Grizzly bears (90%+) were found within ¼ mile of the lowland rivers and inlets where the fish are. No trace could be found in the highlands. Hibernation dens were below the snow level. This really differs in where the Black bears were found. They adapted to the high country (smaller, so need less food for the winter period) 2----- Any disturbance—be road building, Clearcuts, settlements etc. and they were mostly gone within a couple of years. I would take it that the Puget Sound area was of a similar nature before the white man arrived. A lot of Grizzly’s would be found in the lowlands where fish was plentiful and snow was at a minimum. There was probably a large population on the Skagit, Nisqually and any other river that had Salmon. Fish are mostly gone now. Most of Alaska's are also found on the salmon running streams. The ones found in the Cascades may only have be traveling over to the Okanogan country (not known for sure). I know there many in Yellowstone (country more like the Pasayten area) – but again they evolved over hundreds of years to live there. It’s a little like the Orca pods. One group only eats fish and the other only eats seals and the like. They would probably die then switch. So, I would guess transplanting bears in the high cascades, with 10 ft of snow or more and not used to it, is probably a death sentence. My 2 cents worth

[33teeth]

[MtnGoat]

That's where I'm coming from. Stay the course, and if they can adapt and return, then we'll learn to live with 'em, just like the goats of the Olympics.

[cefire]

[cefire]

[NacMacFeegle]

[Daryl]

[gb]

A lot of hyperbole in the last post. First, very few trails are closed in Glacier National Park or in the Canadian Rockies. It is not as if there aren't many choices. As to bear bells there is no evidence they work and I've seen paranoid people even wearing them in the Cascades. Food storage and camping areas need to be separated by 100 yards or so, but that is hardly a big inconvenience (small cost). Carrying bearspray is no big deal either. Been there, done that. The benefit is the introduction of a beautiful animal that will make the North Cascades a more complete wilderness experience. And yes there are still at least a few grizzlies that inhabit/visit the North Cascades. I saw tracks of a large (est. 650 pounds by a biologist) 4 years ago. Also saw additional evidence that was supportive 2 years later.