[cdestroyer]

I don't understand the logic in this thread! reintroduce griz into washington state? then lets reintroduce bison to the plains since we have an over abundance of them in the natl parks. Let them roam neb, wy, kan,co, etc.......

[altasnob]

There are efforts to reintroduce wild bison to the plains in N America. Here is one wild herd in Indiana. A lot of the plains are privately owned and you can't introduce a species onto private lands unless the private land holder wants that species (the Nature Conservancy owns the Indiana reserve). If the majority of the plains was federal wilderness areas like the potential grizzly habitat we are discussing, I think you would see more bison introduced. Having been around grizzlies in Denali NP, Assiniboine, BC, Waterton Park, AB, Glacier NP, Beartooths, and Wind Rivers, I don't understand why the N Cascades, Pasayton, and Salmo Priest Wilderness is any different. The places I've seen grizzlies are not exactly remote, and are filled with tourist, both along roads and deeper into the wilderness. The local economies benefit from the grizzlies as people travel to see the grizzlies. The Pasayton and Salmo Priest Wilderness are some of the more remote wilderness areas in the lower 48. These places should have a healthy grizzly population. You should not fear grizzlies, just like you should not fear driving to a trailhead to go hiking, even though the later is much more deadly.

[Ski]

[moonspots]

[Ski]

Well... perhaps... I think it's counterproductive in some cases to try to "fix" nature. On the flip side: the reintroduction of the Fisher into Olympic National Park has thus far been a success story: the animals are doing okay and not bothering anybody's livestock. But again, it begs the question: Was the ecosystem in Olympic National Park so "out of balance" that it needed the Fisher? How has the Fisher "rebalanced" the ecosystem? And to what degree? The argument for bringing the Gray Wolf back into the ecosystem is 100% supported by a few papers by professors Beschta and Ripple from Oregon State University, and 100% supported by the results seen on the Yellowstone River in Yellowsone National park. And while those same conditions (to a degree - the species of indigenous flora vary somewhat) may exist in riverine systems in Olympic National Park, credible sources argue that conditions other than the extirpation of the apex predator (in this case, the Gray Wolf) are the primary cause of existing conditions in those riparian environments. (see "Channel-planform evolution in four rivers of Olympic National Park, Washington, USA: the roles of physical drivers and trophic cascades" by East, Jenkins, Happe, et al, Olympic National Park 2016) So exactly where is the evidence that reintroduction of an extirpated species into this particular geographic area is going to cause some paradigm shift that will "rebalance" this putative "out of balance" ecosystem, which by all observations seems to be doing quite well on its own at present, notwithstanding the decimation of native runs of anadromous salmonids (upon which the reintroduction of the grizzly bear would have a significant detrimental effect?) Sorry.... honestly... I have refrained from commenting in this discussion either for or against, but the idea of reintroduction of the grizzly bear, when they could easily occupy those lands all on their own, sounds like a bit of a stretch.

[Anne Elk]

I don't know a lot of the details of this organization, but have been aware for some time that it exists: Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative aka Y2Y. It's an umbrella organization coordinating many gov't agencies, NGOs, etc across various jurisdictions. Their biggest goal, and I think, the most worthy, is to create a habitat continuity corridor for the apex species therein. Pretty sure grizzly re-introduction is one of their projects too. But I wonder whether griz reintroduction advocates have considered whether the current state of habitat can even support reintroduced griz; not just in area, but habitat quality. A lot's changed since their regional extirpations: frequent, larger forest fires, food source degradation due to climate change, etc. including lower snowpack, earlier meltouts, water sources going completely dry inhot years that never did before. I've even stopped berry picking, thinking the cirtters need it more than I do. Let the animals do their thing naturally. They'll migrate as the terrain allows. We've seen how quickly they repopulated areas since Covid took humans out of their stomping grounds. And it's hypocrisy to reintroduce griz without making their hunting illegal. (That would probably go over like a lead balloon. ) Nature bounces back as soon as we step out of it. Imagine what we'd get if humans left all the NFs and NPs for 2 whole years ... besides humans going stir crazy.

[treeswarper]

This is only anecdotal, but an old timer, who built a lot of trails in the Pasayten and worked there when it was the Early Winters Ranger District and then the Winthrop, has the opinion that there just isn't enough food for anymore grizzlies than what may be there. He has no wildlife degree, but spent a lot of time in the area. I guess the bear experts disagree. Maybe if the sheep herds were brought back in, the grizzes would follow.

[altasnob]

So why does Glacier NP support a healthy grizzly bear population even with a logjam of tourists? What habitat and food supply exists there that a grizzly could not find in the N Cascades, Pasayton or Salmo Priest Wilderness? As I understand, they largely eat berries. Seems like no shortage of that in Washington. Grizzlies are the apex species and require a tremendous amount of terrain per bear compared to other species. Also, in a hypothetical healthy ecosystem without human interference, wouldn't there be many more wolves than grizzlies? So it's not surprising the wolves have found a way to south of boarder where as bears have not. And I think bears would be in WA already if not for the increasing population and development of the Canadian Okanogan valley, which had 362,258 people in 2016 and is quickly becoming a tech hub of BC without Vancouver's outrageous real estate prices. I don't think the fact the bears are not in WA necessarily proves that WA could not support a healthy grizzly population. They just haven't made it back here yet for a variety of human made reasons.

[kitya]

[Ski]

Bears are, unless I've been misinformed, omnivorous - they'll eat pretty much anything. The wolves came into Eastern Washington (according to wildlife managers) from the east and northeast - presumably Idaho and (possibly) southeastern British Columbia. Currently, according to the Provincial Government's own numbers, there are about 15,000 grizzly bears in British Columbia. According to "Conservation Northwest", there are approximately 50-60 grizzly bears in Washington State in the Selkirks, and about 10 grizzly bears in North Cascade National Park. Looking at the color-coded map on the BC government's page I cited just above, it would seem that translocation (the proper term in the parlance of wildlife management) of grizzly bears in to North Cascades National Park might well be dropping them onto an ecological "island", lacking any viable migratory corridors to other areas where grizzly bear populations of any significance exist. That in and of itself doesn't sound to me like sound wildlife management. It sounds more like a recipe for genetic disaster with a high potential (and most likely high likelihood) of inbreeding. Again, I would submit this is tinkering with the latches on Pandora's Box, failing to take into consideration the inevitable (and all too often) disastrous unforeseen consequences. As to your question regarding Glacier National Park: I suppose there could well be the possibility that there's a viable migratory corridor between Glacier National Park and the Provincial National Park just on the other side of the border. In the case of North Cascades National Park, it appears that the area immediately north (on the Canadian side) is area where the grizzly bear has either been extirpated (due, no doubt, to the massive agricultural, industrial, and residential development of the area) or the grizzly bear population is "threatened" (presumably for the same reasons.) You've repeatedly brought up British Columbia, Alberta, Banff, Assiniboine, Denali, and other destinations where "healthy" grizzly bear populations exist. While that's no doubt true, it is something of an apples-to-oranges comparison: British Columbia land mass area: 364764 square miles human population: 5.071 million grizzly bear population: 15000 (estimated) human population density: 13.0 / square mile Alberta: land mass area: 255541 square miles human population: 4.371 million grizzly bear population: 691 human population density: 16.4 / square mile Alaska: land mass area: 663268 square miles human population: 731545 grizzly bear population: 30000 (est.) human population density: 1.26 / square mile Washington State: land mass area: 71362 square miles human population: 7.615 million grizzly bear population: 55-60 (est.) human population density: 103 / square mile

[Kim Brown]

It actually started in the 1980s and kept getting shelved due to funds. Shelved again, and I think they'll have to start over with another costly EIS and public process

[Ski]

[treeswarper]

[Ski]

Let's put this one to bed once and for all, since it's a recurrent theme touted by various "environmental" groups concerning reintroduction/translocation of wolves and bears:

[cdestroyer]

I am gonna say it one MORE time. I saw a young male grizzle a short ways downstream from chancellor campground where the tin roof cabin is. date was around 1985 give or take. it had been between the trail and the creek in the berry patch. had it been a more mature animal i think my chances of survival might have been less! fortunetly it left downstream and up the hill as I stood watching!