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
Dave Workman
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3699 | TRs | Pics
Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Dave Workman
Member
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 5:55 am 
Bernardo wrote:
The grizzly bear killed the cyclist because he surprised it. Very sad, but an action well within the bounds of normal grizzly behaviour. Tom, you're absolutely right, it's very possible my one death per decade estimate could be low. Every close human grizzly encounter could end badly. The big factor is the number of such encounters. The biologists know this. The best way to avoid encounters and deaths is to keep people away from the bears.
So, let me get this straight, then. You're willing to give up access to vast swaths of territory in the North Cascades in exchange for giving the bears a new home, that right? Because that is the ONLY way you keep people away from bears. Once that's accomplished, watch how the bears find their way down into the Methow, where they can dine on a beef steak (always go where the groceries are easily found) or maybe a llama, a horse, or maybe a rancher or some tourist who thought transplanting grizzlies into the North Cascades was a swell idea. wink.gif

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
cartman
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 2800 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fremont
cartman
Member
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 6:09 am 
Kind of curious why people think we should start carrying spray, guns or whatever if grizzlies are reintroduced. Most of us have done without just fine spending many days in the backcountry coexisting with the far more numerous black bears.
Dave Workman wrote:
You're willing to give up access to vast swaths of territory in the North Cascades in exchange for giving the bears a new home
Absolutely not, which is my primary reason against reintroduction. Along with not seeing the necessity of it ecologically, and the unnecessary monetary cost of implementing and monitoring the plan.

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



Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 2651 | TRs | Pics
Location: Right here.
Tom_Sjolseth
Born Yesterday
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 7:23 am 
contour5 wrote:
Sad story, but it seems to make a better argument for banning bikes from hiking trails, rather than showing Grizz to be a menace.
We don't ban cars for running into deer, so I'm not sure why you can make the same logical leap in this situation. The fact that you CAN make that logical leap helps me understand some of the mentality behind this reintroduction idea.

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



Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 2456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Dakota
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 7:38 am 
cartman wrote:
Most of us have done without just fine spending many days in the backcountry coexisting with the far more numerous black bears.
Uh, to be clear, black bears and grizzlys are completely different animals with completely different temperaments. I agree, black bears don't concern me much. Been camping in their area several times, and no significant problems really.
cartman wrote:
... Along with not seeing the necessity of it ecologically, and the unnecessary monetary cost of implementing and monitoring the plan.
I fully agree with this comment however.

"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon



Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 2456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Dakota
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 7:49 am 
Public comment period open through March 26, 2015 I've been looking to find the submitted comments so far, but don't find them. Perhaps they're not available to the public (yet?). Comments left on the FCC website for example are available for public viewing, so I figured these would/should be as well. Ok, conspiracy theory time... embarassedlaugh.gif

"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Dave Workman
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3699 | TRs | Pics
Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Dave Workman
Member
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 8:48 am 
cartman wrote:
Kind of curious why people think we should start carrying spray, guns or whatever if grizzlies are reintroduced. Most of us have done without just fine spending many days in the backcountry coexisting with the far more numerous black bears.
Dave Workman wrote:
You're willing to give up access to vast swaths of territory in the North Cascades in exchange for giving the bears a new home
Absolutely not, which is my primary reason against reintroduction. Along with not seeing the necessity of it ecologically, and the unnecessary monetary cost of implementing and monitoring the plan.
Begging your pardon, Cartman, but my remark wasn't addressed to you. Your reasons for opposition make perfect sense. Black bears and grizzlies are not one and the same. I've been around black bears in the woods, too. I've been in some areas of Alaska where there are/were grizzlies or coastal browns, too. As for firearms or spray, to each his own.

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
cartman
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 2800 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fremont
cartman
Member
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 9:50 am 
Of course not, Dave. I took your comment as a "generic" quote to illustrate my opinion. My other comment is about arming oneself against any bear, or not. Blacks are much more likely to be a problem, as they are far more prevalent and more used to being near humans. I think griz are going to be rarely if ever sighted given the small numbers they're speaking of reintroducing. And is a grizzly's temperament that much different from a black bear's? Both are essentially apex predators, yet aren't both more likely to run than anything else when they sight a human? I've encountered or seen black bears about ten times in the backcountry in the Cascades. Every reaction, when they knew I was there, was to either immediately run or ignore me. Saw four different bears (none together) in the space of an hour once and three ran, one ignored. Are grizzlies less likely to run and more likely to stand their ground/confront/charge?

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: 3597 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 12:24 pm 
Dave Workman wrote:
mbravenboer wrote:
I was a bit disappointed in the article. For me, a critical piece is whether reintroduction is somehow critical for the ecosystem. If it is, I can probably give in to my negative feelings. If it is not, then I have to wonder why the reintroduction is necessary.
It's not clear from anything I've read that this is critical to the "ecosystem." Seems more like "Hey, this would be neat, let's do it because we can."
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "critical for the ecosystem". We can remove all the animals species by species from an ecosystem and the ecosystem will continue. But it will be changed. My opinion is that when we extirpate animals from the ecosystem, as we did with the grizzly and wolf populations, the ecosystem is diminished. We could extirpate the black bear, elk, deer, marmots, etc., and the ecosystem will continue on, though diminished. This is not a black/white decision but has plenty shades of grey. 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
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11280 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostWed Mar 08, 2017 3:45 pm 
Black bears tend to be shy, except for those that hang out in no-hunting areas, because we have bear hunting season. A bold bear is likely to become a dead bear. I doubt there will be a hunting season for griz so why should they fear humans?

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
Dave Workman
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3699 | TRs | Pics
Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Dave Workman
Member
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 5:56 am 
treeswarper wrote:
I doubt there will be a hunting season for griz so why should they fear humans?
Nah, predatory carnivorous animals are never afraid of food. winksmile.gif

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Dave Workman
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3699 | TRs | Pics
Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Dave Workman
Member
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 6:11 am 
RumiDude wrote:
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "critical for the ecosystem". We can remove all the animals species by species from an ecosystem and the ecosystem will continue. But it will be changed. My opinion is that when we extirpate animals from the ecosystem, as we did with the grizzly and wolf populations, the ecosystem is diminished. We could extirpate the black bear, elk, deer, marmots, etc., and the ecosystem will continue on, though diminished.
You need to re-read what you just wrote. Animals are part of the ecosystem, and you recognize that in your second paragraph. Might be that the ecosystem we now have is a bit better off without the grizzlies and wolves.

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 8:39 am 
moonspots wrote:
I've been looking to find the submitted comments so far, but don't find them. Perhaps they're not available to the public (yet?).
That's correct, they'll be published once they are categorized , indexed, etc. during the next phase of the deal-o. Could be a very long time, given the interest in the project and volumes.of cmemts it might generate.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
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: 3597 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 11:58 am 
Dave Workman wrote:
RumiDude wrote:
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "critical for the ecosystem". We can remove all the animals species by species from an ecosystem and the ecosystem will continue. But it will be changed. My opinion is that when we extirpate animals from the ecosystem, as we did with the grizzly and wolf populations, the ecosystem is diminished. We could extirpate the black bear, elk, deer, marmots, etc., and the ecosystem will continue on, though diminished.
You need to re-read what you just wrote. Animals are part of the ecosystem, and you recognize that in your second paragraph. Might be that the ecosystem we now have is a bit better off without the grizzlies and wolves.
I am not seeing your point about "animals are part of the ecosystem". Of course they are. The definition of an ecosystem is "a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment". The neighborhood I live in here in Port Angeles is an ecosystem. We have loosely differentiated natural ecosystems from that of human shaped ecosystems. A "natural" ecosystem is a human construct without an exact definition. It is one of the things The Wilderness Act attempted to do and we can see that too is subject to varying interpretation. There are no moral judgments in nature. There are no better or worse, good or bad, like or dislike. But we humans do have an aesthetic which we often refer to in terms of feeling. So the hunter feels better about eating an elk steak or roast that he/she hunted and killed, the angler enjoys the feeling of fishing rather than shopping at Safeway or buying from a fish monger. The climber enjoys the summit of a remote mountain better than the climb of the mountain within the sound of the interstate. The hiker enjoys the stroll along the Elwha River deep within ONP much more than staring over the rail of the bridge over the river on Hwy 101. Some people have less appreciation for the truly wild than others. So to the degree that our ecosystems have been sanitized of the top predators, to that degree they feel less wild, to that degree they are diminished. YMMV 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
pcg
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 334 | TRs | Pics
pcg
Member
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 12:50 pm 
Several mini-threads going on. In my experience… Black bears in OR and WA are basically harmless, I carry bear spray in OR because I have an irrational fear of cougars when I am hiking alone at dusk. In addition, I carry bear spray in WA when I am in areas where grizzlies have been seen because I have an irrational fear of grizzlies. From my research… Dangerous bear behavior can be either predatory (usually a black bear) or defensive aggressive (usually a grizzly bear), and it behooves anyone in bear country to know how to recognize which behavior is being exhibited so the appropriate response can be used. Grizzlies everywhere are dangerous. For reasons unknown to me, black bears in AK and Canada tend to me more dangerous than those in OR or WA. More deaths and injuries are caused by black bears in Canada and AK than grizzly bears. Re. messing with ecosystems… IMO there is no such thing as a “natural” ecosystem. If you are referring to an ecosystem untouched by man, then define it as such, as man is just as much a part of the natural world as grizzly bears. Being the apex predator and by far the one with the most brains, we are free to decide what we want. I have been hiking and climbing in NCNP for over 30 years and, though I've never seen a grizzly there, I've always been aware that they are infrequent visitors. With that in mind I am always mindful and careful, but have never been too concerned. If grizzly bears gradually reintroduce themselves to NCNP that is fine by me. It will happen slowly and at a pace that will allow bears and man to comfortably adjust to the change. I am absolutely opposed to artificially shocking the system, which is what human-caused reintroduction will do. Don’t stir things up when it isn’t necessary. It’s dangerous to bears and people and a waste of tax-payer money. Keep protecting them and let them be.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
zephyr
aka friendly hiker



Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 3370 | TRs | Pics
Location: West Seattle
zephyr
aka friendly hiker
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 9:09 pm 
Just a reminder, the comment period ends on March 14. Here's a link to the comment page of the E.I.S. You don't have to furnish all the information requested. You can even reply as Anonymous according to the National Park spokesman at the meeting in Renton. ~z

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 C Dog, carlb328, mehitabel!
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