[Ski]

@altasnob - it would not take a thousand years. timberghost, in a few very short succinct sentences just above, sums up exactly what this game is all about. I am sorry that so many of you are being fooled. Seriously. I know that you are all intelligent, educated people. It troubles me that you are deluded by this nonsense.

[altasnob]

[RumiDude]

[philfort]

Nuance shmuance!

[Logbear]

Why does the Fisher deserve reintroduction?... https://conservationnw.org/our-work/wildlife/fisher/ But the Grizzly Bear doesn't?... https://conservationnw.org/our-work/wildlife/northcascadesgrizzly/ https://www.northcascadesgrizzly.org/ I'm not just asking this for fun. I'd really like to know what the reasons are. I've read what Wilderness Watch has to say about it. They want the bears to recover on their own with minimal human activity in Wilderness Areas. I doubt that Wilderness Watch will do much more than write an opinion letter. A lawsuit from them would probably pit the Wilderness Act against the Endangered Species Act. I think Wilderness Watch would lose and the Endangered Species Act would come out the winner. I don't agree with Wilderness Watch in this case. People messed the ecosystem up by killing the bears. I think people should take positive action to repair the damage that's been done. That's my moral argument. The legal argument is the Endangered Species Act.

[Kim Brown]

[treeswarper]

[timberghost]

[treeswarper]

[Kim Brown]

The question was why one and not the other, but the links provided as examples are both FOR reintroduction of both, not one as yes and one as no. But whatever.....yes, the fisher is easy compared to the grizzly; it's cute, furry, and reintroduction was unopposed. Low hanging fruit, that was. The public Open House for fisher reintroduction at the downtown Seattle library had ONE member of the public in attendance: Me. And that was only because I was downtown anyway, and there was the possibility of snacks. The Seattle grizz Open House at SPU was packed. Standing room only. PACKED. People had to be rotated in and out. And that was just one of the Open House events.

[treeswarper]

From what I read in last week's local paper, the one grizzly meeting held here, in an actual area that bears are likely to wander out into, was packed with people against the project. Experience tells me that it doesn't matter how packed a meeting is, the powers that be will do what they want to do and lots of money/ grants will likely be available to fund more people and 'ologists who need employment. Look at the salmon debacle for proof of that. If the salmon populations were to recover, funding would decrease. It doesn't pay to be a success when it comes to endangered and threatened species. I'm also against bear torture--collars, darts, tracking, blood drawing and the biggie of dumping a bear in an unfamiliar area. It's kind of like all the dogs that are being dumped now. We are against dogs being dumped but bears are OK.

[Ski]

Fishers aren't prone to killing expensive livestock like cows, sheep, goats, or llamas. They kill a few chickens. Chickens are cheap. People are not afraid of being attacked by fishers. They'd rather take photographs of them. Ergo: no negative social or economic impacts - real or imagined - from the fisher. Fishers and Grizzly Bears = Apple and Oranges. Invalid argument, but thanks for the non sequitur whataboutism.

[Ski]

@altasnob - You would need to go back to one of the original posts in one of the "mountain goat" threads here and dig up that paper on the Mountain Goats that ONP drew up years ago. I think Patti Happe was one of the authors. THAT is the paper that put to rest the claims/rumors/myths that goats were indigenous to the Olympic Peninsula, and went into great detail debunking each and every rumor/claim/myth that there had been goats on the peninsula in pre-Columbian times. This is all I have here at the moment: Final Mountain Goat Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement April 2018 NPS *.pdf 11.1 MB Appendices *.pdf 5.5 MB ^ I can email you either of these, but neither of those are the paper I'm thinking of.... the one I'm thinking of is NOT an EIS - not even sure if was available as a *.pdf - much older than 2018 though. Memory is a bit fuzzy on that particular detail, but NPS was receiving complaints from visitors about the goats trampling and wallowing the upper alpine meadows - they were concerned about an endemic form of grass (or a sedge?) that only grew in the uplands of the Peninsula. Those complaints (if I'm not mistaken) began in the 1940s or 1950s (?) - it was already an issue long prior to the Park's administration finally being motivated to do something about it. The goats were released by a group of hunters in the late 1920s. (I think 1926 - that paper would confirm a hard date.)

[Ski]

Try these: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/25/chap1.htm and http://npshistory.com/series/science/25/report.pdf ^ might be that second one.... Janis Burger worked on that one. She collected hornet nests. Smart lady. Been quite a few years since I waded through all of those documents and I'm somewhat disinclined to revisit that at the present. I am currently occupied with other tasks - right now I'm trying to untangle patent numbers and incorporation dates and partnership dissolutions among the dozen or so different manufacturers of taps, dies, and screw plates in late 19th and early 20th century Greenfield, Massachusetts. I'm going to run it by four of my contacts to make sure we get it right - you'll be able to find it HERE. I have enough on my plate this week. Even though I know there will be time for all the works and days of hands that lift and drop a question on my plate. I will be descending the stair.

[RumiDude]

The 1973 Endangered Species Act states: Section 2. Findings, Purposes, and Policy (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares that— (1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; (2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; (3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; Under purposes an policy rubrics: (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section. (c) POLICY.—(1) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. So the findings of Congress under the 1973 ESA were that threatened and endangered species were of "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people" and thus conserve the ecosystems in order to conserve the endangered/threatened species, and that it should involve all the federal departments and agencies in doing so. This is the law of the land, not the fundraising antics of any enviro organization. Nearly 50 years later we are (again) seriously looking at reintroducing grizzly bears into the greater North Cascades ecosystem. I linked to this Crosscut article up-thread, but I will do so again here. It has some good information concerning the current situation of this process as well as just general information. My personal observations surrounding the general ecological impact is that we don't have a complete and clear idea of how to tinker with the ecosystem. But the fact is that we are doing it all the time with all our actions. We also have learned much about tinkering since the 1973 ESA passed through Congress and was signed into law. It's not a perfect science and often is more art than science, but still we are making progress. Waiting until we have perfect knowledge is a fool's policy. Again, the proposed actions seem measured and prudent. Here is the link to the government notice. Under the proposed action: Proposed Action—Restoration as an Experimental Population Under the ESA Under the proposed action, the NPS and the FWS would capture bears from source populations in either interior British Columbia or the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Approximately 3 to 7 captured grizzly bears would be released into the NCE each year over roughly 5 to 10 years, with a goal of establishing an initial population of 25 grizzly bears. After the initial population of 25 grizzly bears has been reached, an adaptive management phase would allow additional bears to be released into the ecosystem over time to address mortality, population and demographic trends, genetic limitations, and distribution or to adjust the population's sex ratio to improve reproductive success. The proposed action is expected to result in a population of approximately 200 grizzly bears within 60 to 100 years. The proposed action would also include a proposal to designate the reintroduced grizzly bears in the NCE as an experimental population under section 10(j) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). An experimental population is a group of reintroduced plants or animals that is geographically isolated from other populations of the species. Experimental populations must contribute to a species' recovery and may include special protective regulations under the ESA. Designation of grizzly bears released into the NCE as an experimental population would allow the FWS to specify protective regulations to provide greater management flexibility (e.g., relocation or removal) in the event of human—grizzly bear conflict situations. Rumi Explanitory note: I have tried to put all quotations in italic typeface. Anything in bold typeface is my emphasis.