Forum Index > Trail Talk > Fed wants public comments on bears
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 389 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 2:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It becomes irrational when you are ignoring reason... ie, the risk is less than driving to the trailhead.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
iron
getting old



Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6409 | TRs
Location: kenmore
iron
  Top

getting old
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 2:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe wrote:
It becomes irrational when you are ignoring reason... ie, the risk is less than driving to the trailhead.

let us know how that works out for ya when mr grizz is sniffing at your tent door one night because you made a "human mistake" and forgot to sanitize every single smell out of there.

Pahoehoe SO: dear, there's a big ass grizz out the door.
Pahoehoe: stop being irrational. think about the drive home and the risks we have there!

--------------
man, you go through life, you try to be nice to people, you struggle to resist the urge to punch 'em in the face, and for what?

--- moe sizlack
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 3:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
iron wrote:
Pahoehoe wrote:
It becomes irrational when you are ignoring reason... ie, the risk is less than driving to the trailhead.

let us know how that works out for ya when mr grizz is sniffing at your tent door one night because you made a "human mistake" and forgot to sanitize every single smell out of there.

Pahoehoe SO: dear, there's a big ass grizz out the door.
Pahoehoe: stop being irrational. think about the drive home and the risks we have there!

You mean to ask if I would fear that I would be on my way to becoming like one of the 1 in 1.7 million overnight backcountry visitors in Yellowstone National Park?

Absolutely, although the chances of that happening in NCNP any time soon is pretty dang low, even if some bears are brought in.  Yellowstone has about 700 grizzlies.

I would be pretty unlucky if that were me.

See, I treat all "fear" in a similar way.

I look at the reality of that fear.  How likely is it?  What can I do to mitigate the risk?  Can I, or should I avoid it all together?

Cows kill more humans than grizzlies.  Tell that to the ranchers!

And, again, 1 in 77 of us will be killed in a car accident!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 805 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 3:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Despite the negligible chances of being shredded by a griz, it seems like a decent way to go, compared to rotting in a nursing home or bleeding out in a car crash.  Plus it would make a good story for the grandkids.  I'm not an ecologist and can't comment on whether reintroduction makes sense in the cascades.  I will note however that humans spent the past hundred thousand years wiping out most of the world's megafauna and apex predators.  We finally have the tools and knowledge to start safely reversing this trend.  I'd be delighted to see grizzly habitat expand, and eventually mammoths up in the tundra.  I think this can even done while maintaining the delusion that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and deserve special treatment.
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
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 3269 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
  Top

Faster than light
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 7:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
iron wrote:
ok. i will engage.

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)

comprende?

"Possibly"

Nobody is being forced deep into the North Cascades wilderness whether these hypothetical monsters are going to be.  And nobody actively seeks crevasse falls out.

NPS already requires bear canisters in places where they make sense.  Because black bears are already there, like food, and have claws and teeth.  People who visit the mountains already know it's not without hazards, there are plenty of sanitized nature-like experiences available, and we choose the real thing instead.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
iron
getting old



Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6409 | TRs
Location: kenmore
iron
  Top

getting old
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 7:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
bear cans are only required in areas that have been overrun with people at common camp spots and have mice/small mammal issues.

the recent additions to bear can requirements in the n. cascades is a result of the mythical grizzly from 2010. this is why they're required in hidden lake/big devil area because of the magic photo that proved.... nothing.

it's okay, you and pahoehoe are new here. when you get some context on the background, then your arguments will make sense.

--------------
man, you go through life, you try to be nice to people, you struggle to resist the urge to punch 'em in the face, and for what?

--- moe sizlack
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
Roly Poly
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 490 | TRs

Roly Poly
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 8:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Oh how I miss those jumping in puddles days.  So much more authentic than now.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
BigBrunyon
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 582 | TRs
Location: the fitness gyms
BigBrunyon
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 14, 2019 8:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
iron wrote:
bear cans are only required in areas that have been overrun with people at common camp spots and have mice/small mammal issues.

the recent additions to bear can requirements in the n. cascades is a result of the mythical grizzly from 2010. this is why they're required in hidden lake/big devil area because of the magic photo that proved.... nothing.

it's okay, you and pahoehoe are new here. when you get some context on the background, then your arguments will make sense.

I had a black bear sniffing all around the tent at a campsite up at mcalester lake one night this summer. Knew it wasn't grizz but, glad I had my food in a bear canister! Pretty sure they are known to be way up in the north cascs and are eyeing sites from the woods at twilight to see where the people put the food before emerging after dark.

--------------
i ALWAYS camp at the upper lake!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message 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
PostTue Oct 15, 2019 1:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The average profit of a heifer in 2015 was $2400 (~$9000 - cost of food, shelter etc.)

Looking at the 2015 USDA data (since FWS has nothing verified beyond 2013 in the linked article) we can extrapolate.
There were 1813 reported losses from grizzly bears. If we multiply by cost per state we get:

308 in Idaho       $739,200
952 in Montana   $2,284,800
553 in Wyoming  $1,327,200

Losses within known grizzly habitat cost is over $4 million
If we are to believe the total national losses (excluding Alaska)
3162 losses or    $7,588,800

Looking at Fig. 14 on the Humane Society Grizzly Livestock doc, data from Montana Board of Livestock shows that in Montana alone there were greater than 30 confirmed grizzly related losses per year and double if probable attacks are considered. This would place losses at $100k-200k per year using only this one group of data.

These were likely only incurred by select individuals within each animal's range. Even spread over hundreds of ranches this would extol tens of thousands of dollars on each ranch. Put yourself in their boots for a moment... would you take a hit that big every year for bears? What about double or triple if you were the unlucky guy that lived near bear habitat? (yeah, personally I'd move my animals out to safer pasture but core american values can't be helped for some...)

Now there were reports in other states of grizzly related losses outside the known range (Arkansas, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin) which places the reliability of the USDA data deeply in question. But ranchers and farmers are not going to investigate it further to differentiate from wolves, coyotes or black bears. All threats are dealt with. As a rancher or farmer, financially it makes no sense to be lenient and this is the real tragic part.

What could be done to create real financial incentive for those who stand to take the biggest risk from bringing the bears back? This is my chief concern and why I wanted to go over the options laid out by NPS

With a little over a week to go, I hope we stop ranting about the terrible Griz and start considering real impacts on both the bears and landowners.
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
PostTue Oct 15, 2019 6:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cohabitation between humans and grizzlies passed the point of viability decades ago in Washington. This thread and the surrounding debate is an indicator. Ready to embrace the challenges faced by the same states that are being cited as examples of reintroduction? Confident that it's fair to the human residents as well as the grizzlies to squeeze them into the same space (amazingly smaller now, and only guaranteed to get smaller and to contain fewer resources as time goes on)? Comfortable with yourself in making that choice for all residents and animals in the affected areas?

Restoring an apex predator at the top of an ecosystem when many of the bricks comprising the ecosystem's pyramid have been destroyed, need repair or evaluation? Sounds like we are skipping a few steps here.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



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

Gorecrow
PostTue Oct 15, 2019 6:17 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cyclopath wrote:
Nobody is being forced deep into the North Cascades wilderness whether these hypothetical monsters are going to be.  And nobody actively seeks crevasse falls out.

Can't draw lines around the bears and tell them to stay. If you decided to try I would recommend that you stream every moment. Only a matter of time before they come into town, camp, etc. There is absolutely no way to prevent this, it is a question of when and how often.

The bear would pay the ultimate price for reintroduction. Which of these three is most likely to be shot after a negative encounter in the future (regardless of what stupid @#%! the person pulled - we all know the person is usually at fault in these instances): A) Bear, B) Person, C) Cattle. It's not fair to the bears, I know people want a nice home for them. This is not the answer.
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
PostTue Oct 15, 2019 6:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Michael Lewis wrote:
The average profit of a heifer in 2015 was $2400 (~$9000 - cost of food, shelter etc.)

The average heifer (a female bovine never having given birth) weighs about 500lbs and sells for about 600 dollars if exposed to a bull.

Calf/cow pair expenses for the year are about 600 dollars a year.

I'm not sure where you are getting your info but it's very wrong.


https://www.drovers.com/article/cattle-prices-and-profitability-2019
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
some name
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Posts: 3 | TRs

some name
  Top

Member
PostTue Oct 15, 2019 8:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I am having some trouble with something about the discussion on this thread. Some of the comments seem to indicate that the proposed Grizzly recovery area is primarily within the North Cascades National Park (NCNP), and that as hikers/climbers/backpackers we would be very unlikely to ever encounter a Grizzly Bear unless we traveled deep into the heart of the NCNP, or perhaps we would experience an occasional trail closure, but again only if we are using a trail deep within the NCNP ( I suppose that very few NW Hikers posters would do this . . . )

However, when I look at Fig. 1 (Area Of Analysis) on pg. 2 of the EIS, and read the text of the EIS document, it seems that the actual planned recovery area is much more and much larger than the NCNP itself, and includes all of the area identified as the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE). This is the area outlined in black on Fig. 1, and appears to include pretty much all federal land north of I-90, and extending some into BC. Am I reading this correctly? Is the plan to add bears to the NCNP area only? Or is it to restore a significant Grizzly population to the entire NCE? Could someone please clarify this?

Grizzly-Bear-Restoration-Plan-EIS-Fig-1
Grizzly-Bear-Restoration-Plan-EIS-Fig-1

--------------
some signature
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message 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
PostTue Oct 15, 2019 8:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
As pointed out by Zephyr in chapter 2 of EIS you'll see a map of release locations:

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
PostTue Oct 15, 2019 8:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Some names,  you are correct in looking at the map.  The area in consideration is the area north of I-90. Ie much more than what some consider North Cascades.

--------------
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
  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