[Cyclopath]

[Celticclimber]

https://www.outsideonline.com/2387056/grizzly-country

[thunderhead]

I could go either way, but i think I overall favor reintroduction. Part of me doesnt want to deal with grizzlies, but a bigger part of me wants them to scare off the hipsters. Introduce em to the 90 corridor, i say.

[pcg]

[MangyMarmot]

Comparing visitation numbers between Glacier and North Cascades is misleading. Vast majority of visitors to Glacier drive through the park and never get far from the road. They have almost no chance of interacting with a bear. North Cascades is different. To my knowledge, the only road that leads into the park is Cascade River Road which very few people take just to see the sights from the car. It's almost all day hikers and backpackers. The only other way to get into the park is on foot. You quote 30,000+ visitors per year. That's a lot of people hiking in the backcountry.

[Pahoehoe]

This isnt really accurate, either. Bears are right up to the roads in glacier and glacier is heavily hiked. Backcountry camp grounds fill up. Did you not see the numbers of nights spent camping? It's all bear country.

[SwitchbackFisher]

[SwitchbackFisher]

[Pahoehoe]

Yeah, Glacier is well known as a hiker's park. Anyone who says otherwise doesnt know what they are talking about...

[Bernardo]

This article does a pretty good job summarizing the grizzly situation in the north Cascades. It points out correctly that the last grizzly shot in the area was in 1967. I would take exception, however, with the assertion that there have been some sightings since then. There has been no conclusive evidence of grizzly presence since then. As the author says clearly, she favors grizzly reintroduction. It seems very hard for those in favor of grizzly reintroduction to admit that there has been no physical evidence of the bear's presence in the Cascades in part because a total lack of bears has negative legal and finacial ramifications for bear reintroduction/transplation programs. It's unhelpful to bear biologists and unromantic to believe they are gone. The article mentions the debunked picture from 2010, but then muddies the water about whether it was a grizzly, even though it was refuted by experts and more pictures of the same bear shortly afterward. That picture is like a vampire, it keeps coming back to life. In any case, it's not conclusive. The article also alludes to the huge regulatory framework that would surround grizzly reintroduction (and already does). That scares me. Once actual bears are in the area, and it can be proven in a court of law that they exist and are endangered, who knows what decisions courts will make with regard to backcountry access, ensuring the safety of the bears, keeping people and bears separate, etc. No one can make a promise now that can be kept or predict what some judge will decide in the future. Maybe someone could win a court case excluding people from a vast swath of land while the bears slowly recover over the next decades? No one can say. I will make a prediction here, however. If even only a few grizzlies are introduced, there will be physical evidence that they are out there. There will be sightings, camera shots, hair, dens, etc. All the things that have been missing from the region since 1967 will all of a sudden be commonplace. There will probably be a movie showing the bears happy in their Cascades habitat. There is a simple explanation for the current lack of all these things. Will you accept it? One other issue I disagree with in the article, I don't think adding the north Cascades range is material in terms of expanding the grizzly's overall range and genetic diversity. Yes, it would be noticeable in terms of the lower 48, but it is not significant in terms of the overall grizzly bear population in North America. 200 additional bears isn't going to affect the survival of a species with a population of 55,000. So does the pro argument boil down to simply a preference? The bears don't need the Cascades, but some of us need the bears? It's ok to promote a preference, but when your preference impacts other people in a big way it's normal for it to be contested as a public policy. When folks start to agrue that their preference is really a moral imperative debate breaks down. I've enjoyed the thread so far because a good variety of views have been expressed. For those of you relatively new here, you might be surprised to learn this topic has been debated like a 1,000 times already. Iron was doing a service, though, highlighting that the comment period is back open. You might enjoy reading his trip reports as well. He's done some cool trips in the regions in question. Here's another statistical joke: Did you notice that of total grizzly bear fatalities in NCNP and GNP, 100% have occurred in GNP? I think I see a pattern! Despite the fact the GNP gets more visitors, can it be argued that it is more remote? It certainly has more corridors to further large wild areas.

[Pahoehoe]

Your article is about black bears on the Appalachian trail. I'm not sure how that pertains to griz in NCNP. The National Park Service is required by federal law to conserve and preserve parks but also provide access.... You might want to read the National Park Service Act of 1916... I'm not sure why you think they will shut down the park because there are bears... they dont shut down Glacier...? If people follow the rules that are already in place for black bears, which are more likely to attack humans in a predatory way, the grizzlies wont be an issue. Of course, if belvedere wants to fry trout right in front of his tent, that might lead to his demise, grizzlies or black bears...

[Bedivere]

[pcg]

[Bernardo]

[CarriesNineFires]

The arguments tend toward a comparison between what the grizzly would do and what the hikers would want their experiences to be. I doubt that the twain shall meet: how often do you encounter black bears in the backcountry? Rarely, and they flee immediately upon your arrival. The reasoning for bringing back the grizzly is to restore a former status. I don't think it should mean anything more than that, and if the hiker experiences a new paradigm, well, that is an adjustment to be made. It won't be a major adjustment: the monster will not be lurking. Hell, it probably won't even establish itself because it's sensitive to so many factors. It's that kind of animal. I won't say yes or no to the project because I think it works out well either way but I will say that the result will be a lot less contentious than you may think. A couple of dozen bears? Nah, that's nothing more than a bit of spice added to your trip. Almost nobody has a negative encounter with a bear. Statistics bear that out.