[joker]

[Bernardo]

Thanks for the tip GB! I just ordered my copy of Herroro's seminal work, "Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance." Apparently, he gets into the gory details of a lot of gruesome attacks. I'm going to devour that book quicker than a grizzly would pounce on hiker standing by a cadaver.

[RumiDude]

[joker]

Not sure if it's rational or not but ticks worry me way more than griZz in Washington in my lifetime. They're here and the range seems to be expanding so we may be heading for what's already harkened back east. I know more than one person in New England who's life has changed due tick borne disease. People who took the standard precautions.

[Bernardo]

Rumidude, I think I get and appreciate what you are trying to say. My point was that putting these bears into our environment will have a cost. People should carry the spray and at some point, someone is going to have to use it. That's not something anyone wants anyone to experience, but that's part of the deal. For some people that possibility is a deal breaker. Not for everyone, maybe not for most people, but for some. I'll just mention in passing that another cost for me is that more people will carry firearms because not everyone will buy into the effectiveness of the sprays. Don't know how to evaluate that cost now however. I probably owe some others a reply, but that may have to wait until I read my new book. In meantime, anyone should feel free to suggest better numbers if they don't like mine. I am going to edit my prior post which is now moot.

[Chief Joseph]

Bears and people can coexist, they have for thousands of years. All one can do is to be prepared, be aware, and respect their territory. If fate dictates that you are eaten by a bear, so be it. Fear strikes out. I am on the fence as to grizzly re-introduction into their previous areas, not an easy choice, there are good arguments for both sides, much like the wolf re-introduction issue. However, I for one would hate to see either species disappear so..

[Ski]

^ grizzly bears are not in any danger of disappearing. nor are wolves.

[DIYSteve]

[texasbb]

[Schenk]

[Chief Joseph]

[Ski]

well... if you bother to look at something other than the "Defenders of Wildlife" website, you'll find that there are plenty of both grizzly bears and wolves in Canada and Alaska. just because there aren't very many here in Washington State doesn't mean they're in any imminent danger of "disappearing".

[Chief Joseph]

True Ski, but imho they need proponents as well, since there are plenty of people who want them to "disappear".

[DIYSteve]

The issue is not whether grizzly bears are "disappearing," whatever that means. IMV the issue is fear, both uninformed irrational fear of a remote risk (if you take proper precautions) and peddling fear to push an agenda.

[Ski]

^ good point, and there certainly is no shortage of fear, is there? on the flip side, I kind of wonder about the validity of some arguments pushing for reintroduction. where has it been established and documented that the North Cascades ecosystem is less than "healthy", and by what metric is that being measured? my reservations about reintroduction (actually "translocation", in this particular instance) are not so much about "fear" as they are concerns about the expenditures of public resources used to achieve some nebulous "goal" that may or may not ever be achieved, as seems to be exactly what's happening with the wolf here in Washington State. == and Chief Joseph: there are no shortage of "proponents" when it comes to wolves and grizzly bears; those are both huge generators of cash contributions to organizations like "Defenders of Wildlife".