Forum Index > Trail Talk > Fed wants public comments on bears
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
zephyr
aka friendly hiker



Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 1930 | TRs
Location: West Seattle
zephyr
  Top

aka friendly hiker
PostThu Oct 10, 2019 2:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
iron wrote:
glaciers + crevasses occur ONLY for people that actively seek them, likely en route to a summit.

grizzles, if introduced, would occur possibly everywhere, impacting everyone (bear cans, regulations, bear spray, yadda yadda)


        Exactly.     ~z
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
Brushwork
Food truck



Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Posts: 348 | TRs
Location: Washington
Brushwork
  Top

Food truck
PostThu Oct 10, 2019 4:57 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cyclopath wrote:
According to nwhikers, there are no dangers at all in the mountains, but if grizzlies are brought in, everyone will die.

Well I don’t agree with that statement.   At all.

Having been conflicted, I’m now in favor of their reintroduction.   Maybe it won’t work, but that’s not a reason not to try.   

Much of the reason to have or try to have some remaining intact ecosystems are not about logic but about values.

--------------
When I grow up I wanna play.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sky Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1035 | TRs
Location: outside
Sky Hiker
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 11, 2019 4:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
https://methowvalleynews.com/2019/10/09/most-at-okanogan-public-meeting-oppose-grizzlies/
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
BaNosser
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Posts: 191 | TRs

BaNosser
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 11, 2019 1:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe wrote:
Only if you roll in bacon grease before you go to bed...

Seriously, you aren't stupid, what's with the hysteria?

Why would a few bears in the North Cascades kill more than the 1000s of bears in the rest of North America?

Grizzlies are shy.  They avoid people.  As long as people secure their food and respect the bears the risk is minimal.

I spend a lot of time in the North Cascades..  I enjoy the thought of possibly seeing a black bear out there...  and I enjoy the comfort of knowing there aren't any brown bears..

A quick google shows 11 FATAL griz attacks in NA since 2014..  4 of them in MT and WY where griz actually are...   Yeah a couple were taken out of their tents but most were hikers or hunters.. and the poor mtn biker killed up near Glacier NP..  where my family and I were vacationing at the time and were probably no more than a few miles away when it happened...

But I guess when a few people are eventually sacrificed it will have been a small price to pay...
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
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 389 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostSat Oct 12, 2019 9:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
BaNosser wrote:
Pahoehoe wrote:
Only if you roll in bacon grease before you go to bed...

Seriously, you aren't stupid, what's with the hysteria?

Why would a few bears in the North Cascades kill more than the 1000s of bears in the rest of North America?

Grizzlies are shy.  They avoid people.  As long as people secure their food and respect the bears the risk is minimal.

I spend a lot of time in the North Cascades..  I enjoy the thought of possibly seeing a black bear out there...  and I enjoy the comfort of knowing there aren't any brown bears..

A quick google shows 11 FATAL griz attacks in NA since 2014..  4 of them in MT and WY where griz actually are...   Yeah a couple were taken out of their tents but most were hikers or hunters.. and the poor mtn biker killed up near Glacier NP..  where my family and I were vacationing at the time and were probably no more than a few miles away when it happened...

But I guess when a few people are eventually sacrificed it will have been a small price to pay...

Yellowstone has some statistics...

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/injuries.htm

A few bits from their site

Quote:
Since 1979, Yellowstone has hosted over 118 million visits. During this time, 44 people were injured by grizzly bears in the park. For all park visitors combined, the chances of being injured by a grizzly bear are approximately 1 in 2.7 million visits. The risk is significantly lower for people who don't leave developed areas or roadsides, and higher for anyone hiking in the backcountry.

Type of Recreational Activity: Risk of Grizzly Bear Attack
Remain in developed areas, roadsides, and boardwalks: 1 in 59.5 million visits
Camp in roadside campgrounds: 1 in 26.6 million overnight stays
Camp in the backcountry: 1 in 1.7 million overnight stays
Hike in the backcountry: 1 in 232,613 person travel days
All park activities combined: 1 in 2.7 million visits

Quote:
Since Yellowstone was established in 1872, eight people have been killed by bears in the park. More people in the park have died from drowning (121 incidents), burns (after falling into hot springs, 21 incidents), and suicide (26 incidents) than have been killed by bears. To put it in perspective, the probability of being killed by a bear in the park (8 incidents) is only slightly higher than the probability of being killed by a falling tree (7 incidents), in an avalanche (6 incidents), or being struck and killed by lightning (5 incidents)

Much lower than the risk of driving a car!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sky Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1035 | TRs
Location: outside
Sky Hiker
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 4:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
But still a risk and how would you like to be one of those statistics?
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
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 389 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 7:11 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sky Hiker wrote:
But still a risk and how would you like to be one of those statistics?

They should ban driving to the trailheads and make a mandatory public transportation system... it will save lives.  More lives than will be lost due to putting bears back where humans removed them from.

Humans are terrible at analyzing risk.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5465 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 8:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
  wrote:
Humans are terrible at analyzing risk

Yes; and that includes, perhaps, the lack of fear.

Goading, cajoling, crowing, toss out what aboutisms is not an affective way to alleviate someone’s fear. I am on the fence about the issue; I like to hike solo, but am afraid of grizzlies and cougars, so in areas there have been sightings, I am afraid. The rational side of me knows cougars are everywhere, but the fear in me says they’re more abundant in North Central and eastern Washington, so I don’t hike solo in those areas; not that a 2nd person would save me, but it makes me feel better.

Sometimes fears are irrational,  and the person knows that it is irrational. Sometimes the fear is rational as far as that person in concerned. Sometimes it is rational and sometimes it is irrational.

Regardless, if someone says they fear something, an attempt at making them feel stupid is not affective.

This is a fairly serious project, and everyone’s opinion is important.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1583 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 8:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sky Hiker wrote:
https://methowvalleynews.com/2019/10/09/most-at-okanogan-public-meeting-oppose-grizzlies/

Quote:
orchardists can electrify the barriers already in place to keep deer out.

The fires started by electrified barriers should help keep those pesky bears away from Mazama  rolleyes.gif (sarcasm directed at the meeting participant, and not at SkyHiker  up.gif )
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 389 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 8:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
Sometimes fears are irrational

Irrational fear has no place in policy making.  I won't attempt to list all the places where irrational fear has caused damage lasting many generations...

Kim Brown wrote:
This is a fairly serious project, and everyone’s opinion is important

I support everyone's right to say their piece, but opinions rooted in irrational fear should not be considered in decision making except for perhaps noting a need for education to help reduce fear.

People are notoriously difficult to educate and "feel stupid" when faced with evidence disproving their beliefs, though

Kim Brown wrote:
  wrote:
Humans are terrible at analyzing risk

Yes; and that includes, perhaps, the lack of fear.

I do not have a lack of fear of grizzly bears, if that is what you are suggesting.  I actually fear black bears and cougars as well.

I just think it's extremely important that we keep as much land as is reasonably possible as unimpacted as reasonably possible including restoration of native species.

I am able to look at the facts and say that the risk is low and if I happen to end up being that statistic it's just my time.  Same if I die in a car accident, am murdered, crash my mountain bike into a tree, drown while wading in a river, get heart disease from too many cheese burgers... all more likely than dying in a grizzly bear attack.

1 in 77 humans are killed in a car accident.  What was the number for yellowstone backpackers?  1 in 200,000 or something?

If you are willing to get in a car but you are opposed to grizzlies in their native habitat you are being irrational.  I'm sorry if that makes you feel stupid.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5465 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 9:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe wrote:
I'm sorry if that makes you feel stupid.

I specifically called your attempt an attempt, but thanks for apologizing anyway.

This type of debate style turns people off. It's the same tactic North Cascades Conservation Council used against the repair of the Suiattle Road, and for their proposal to expand NCNP.

It doesn't work. I know, because I've done it myself, and after years of being on each side of an argument time and again, have learned from it.  I wish I knew then, how best to debate and make good efforts to persuade. It's working with the "psychology of the individual" *.




* PG Wodehouse.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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
Michael Lewis
Taking a nap



Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 543 | TRs
Location: Lynnwood, WA (for now)
Michael Lewis
  Top

Taking a nap
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 9:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Finally found the comment link through the Okanogan meeting link:

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsOpenForReview.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=44144

I'd like to see more discussion on the different costs associated with the 4 options as opposed to how many people were killed by griz kind of stuff (you can always skew data, LNT and carry bear spray). Maybe if we understood the costs it would be easier to motivate people. One of the arguments made at Okanogan was fear of cattle loss. Has this been documented in grizzly habitat that included rural pastures and is there a common defense that minimizes losses? What are the actual costs?

Given this will be publicly funded, I'm most curious as to the breakdown of each possibility and what will have the smallest financial footprint.

We already meddle in nature's affairs and to spend money on further meddling feels like weak reparations. If doing so challenges public trust, rational or not, it should have less impact.
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
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 389 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 10:05 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Michael Lewis wrote:
One of the arguments made at Okanogan was fear of cattle loss. Has this been documented in grizzly habitat that included rural pastures

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS-Grizzly-Livestock_6.Mar_.19Final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiU25X9qZzlAhUWv54KHeo_B-MQFjAJegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Tfx9cuWTfTWm6A1xRNjPu&cshid=1571076100503

Quote:
Government data confirm that grizzly bears have a
negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries
In the United States, data show that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) kill few cattle and sheep. Livestock
predation data collected by various governmental bodies differ significantly, however. The most recent
data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(USDA)1
indicate losses many times greater than those collected by states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). For instance, the USDA claims grizzly bears killed 3,162 cattle in nine states (in 2015),
while the FWS verified only 123 such losses in three states (in 2013). Montana’s Board of Livestock’s
data show that between 2015 and 2018 cattle losses from grizzly bears numbered 61 or less annually. The
USDA’s methodology involves collecting data from a few mostly unverified sources, which the USDA then
extrapolated statewide without calculating standard errors or using models to test relationships among
various mortality factors.2
This contravenes the scientific method and results in exaggerated livestock
losses attributed to native carnivores and dogs. Unfortunately, this misinformation informs public
policies that harm native carnivores, including countless legislative attacks on grizzly bears, wolves and
the Endangered Species Act.
The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the USDA’s embellished predation numbers. Their
data show that farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing
and theft problems than to all predators combined. In the USDA reports, “predators” include mammalian
carnivores (e.g., cougars, wolves and bears), avian carnivores (e.g., eagles and hawks) and domestic dogs.
Domestic dogs, according to the USDA’s data, kill 85 percent more cattle than grizzly bears. Also
according to the USDA, in the states where grizzly bears live (excluding Alaska), they cause far fewer
than one percent of unwanted cattle-calf (hereinafter “cattle”) losses by inventory.
The USDA’s sheep losses report fails to differentiate between black bears and grizzly bears, making an
analysis for grizzly bears impossible. Black bears live in approximately 41 states,3
while in the lower 48
states grizzly bears live in only three: Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Black bears’ and grizzly bears’ ranges
overlap in those same three states. Grizzly bears also occur in Alaska, but the USDA does not analyze
Alaska in their livestock reports.
We present our analysis of the USDA’s data sets on cattle deaths in the three, grizzly bear-occupied states
(excluding Alaska) and grizzly bears’ effects on the national cattle industries. We compare the USDA’s
cattle data to those of other governmental bodies that also collect this information, which corroborates
our findings that while the USDA’s predation figures are significantly exaggerated, they are nominal when
compared to livestock mortalities from health, weather, theft and birthing problems (we refer to these
livestock losses as “maladies”). We describe humane, efficacious and cost-effective non-lethal methods
for livestock protection, and show that only a fraction of cattle and sheep growers in grizzly bear-
occupied states use non-lethal methods to protect their herds—even as numerous published studies have
found that non-lethal methods to protect non-native cattle and sheep from native carnivores are more
efficacious and cost effective than the constant slaughter of wildlife that is ubiquitously employed—even
on federally protected species.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 389 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 11:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
Pahoehoe wrote:
I'm sorry if that makes you feel stupid.

I specifically called your attempt an attempt, but thanks for apologizing anyway.

This type of debate style turns people off. It's the same tactic North Cascades Conservation Council used against the repair of the Suiattle Road, and for their proposal to expand NCNP.

It doesn't work. I know, because I've done it myself, and after years of being on each side of an argument time and again, have learned from it.  I wish I knew then, how best to debate and make good efforts to persuade. It's working with the "psychology of the individual" *.




* PG Wodehouse.

I actually wasnt attempting to make anyone feel stupid.  I'm just putting up facts that make irrational fear mongering look stupid...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
zephyr
aka friendly hiker



Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 1930 | TRs
Location: West Seattle
zephyr
  Top

aka friendly hiker
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 1:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe wrote:
I actually wasnt attempting to make anyone feel stupid.  I'm just putting up facts that make irrational fear mongering look stupid...

Fear of grizzly bears is a healthy human response--developed over millennia of sharing the landscape together.  Saying that this natural fear is "stupid" is just to intimidate people sharing their fear or concern.  We get it that you want the bears back as demonstrated by your multiples posts on this thread.  But it also seems that you want others to shut up about it.

Re: "irrational"--quoting Wikipedia: The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.[1][2]

Those of us who have concerns about encounters with grizzly bears have every right to voice them.  Your heavy-handed put down is not appreciated.  It just discourages others from speaking out.    ~z
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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Fed wants public comments on bears
  Happy Birthday roos2er!
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