Forum Index > Trail Talk > North Cascade National Park Grizzley Bear Reintroduction
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Now I Fly
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Jun 2018
Posts: 130 | TRs | Pics
Now I Fly
Member
PostThu Nov 10, 2022 2:50 pm 
Thought this would be noteworthy to the nwhikers.net group. I'm confident I crossed paths with a Grizzley near Elephant Butte last summer. Changed the days experience for me. https://apnews.com/article/travel-animals-washington-wildlife-ee5171998130cb4352e3a88ce2b5cf94 B

hikerbiker, Cyclopath
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Celticclimber
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2012
Posts: 291 | TRs | Pics
Location: Index
Celticclimber
Member
PostThu Nov 10, 2022 3:12 pm 
The hope of re-establishing grizzly bears into Wildness areas has been going on since the mid 90's. I've always support this. But to my shock. There are a lot of 'nature loving ' groups that have fought it. The biggest was/is the Mountaineers. Their rational is that having these bears out there will keep them (the Mountaineers) off of 'their ' trails. I fear the guy or gal (seen both) who carry firearms out there on 'my' trails. More than any grizzly bear that I might encounter. Lois Chrisler in her book ARCTIC WILD wrote: " Wilderness without wildlife, it just scenery"

Live every day like you will die to-marrow. For some day that will be true.

vibramhead, RumiDude, JimmyBob, cascadeclimber, Now I Fly, Secret Agent Man, Cyclopath  hikerman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fourteen410
Member
Member


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2402 | TRs | Pics
fourteen410
Member
PostThu Nov 10, 2022 11:52 pm 
Celticclimber wrote:
But to my shock. There are a lot of 'nature loving ' groups that have fought it. The biggest was/is the Mountaineers. Their rational is that having these bears out there will keep them (the Mountaineers) off of 'their ' trails.
I don't find this shocking at all. All species are motivated by survival. Humans are no exception. The reintroduction of an apex predator is going to put people on high alert for that very reason. I have no desire to encounter a grizzly if I don't have to, so it's a hard pass for me.

Joseph, hikerman, CS, Bramble_Scramble, mosey
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
zephyr
aka friendly hiker



Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 3111 | TRs | Pics
Location: West Seattle
zephyr
aka friendly hiker
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 6:47 am 
fourteen410 wrote:
I have no desire to encounter a grizzly if I don't have to, so it's a hard pass for me.
Totally. Now and always. ~z

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 2161 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 7:02 am 
Might help anyone thinking about this to look at the numbers. 2 deaths so far this year (Alaska, Montana) if the list on wikipedia is complete. That said, the thought of encountering one while hiking solo makes me a little uneasy. But so does the thought of encountering, say, a crazy person with a weapon.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
zephyr
aka friendly hiker



Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 3111 | TRs | Pics
Location: West Seattle
zephyr
aka friendly hiker
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 7:37 am 
neek wrote:
2 deaths so far this year (Alaska, Montana)
That's why I suggest that those who want to hike with grizzlies can do so in Montana or Alaska. ~z

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12230 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((>
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 7:57 am 
@neek - Not so much worried about encounters with large animals that are capable of ripping my face off and eating me. I do actually worry more about deranged, meth-crazed humans here in the city than I do about wild animals in the outdoors. My reticence about embracing the idea of bringing in a species which (for all we know) has been extirpated is more because I have not seen many instances where reintroduction or translocation (of extirpated species) has had net positive effects overall, when all factors are taken into consideration (including social and financial impacts.) The whole "at any cost" ruling on the ESA was a huge mistake in judgment. The money supply is finite. (* The fisher, on the other hand, has apparently been a roaring success! NOT a lot of money, NOT causing problems with other animals or humans. The fisher has been a win-win all around. Not so much with others. *)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."

ChinookPass
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6564 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 8:18 am 
Celticclimber wrote:
Their rational is that having these bears out there will keep them (the Mountaineers) off of 'their ' trails.
I don't see it as the Mountaineers thinking they own the trails. More like they understand their membership base wanting to continue recreation.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert

Ski
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 2161 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 8:19 am 
Ski wrote:
My reticence about embracing the idea of bringing in a species which (for all we know) has been extirpated is more because I have not seen many instances where reintroduction of translocation (of extirpated species) has had net positive effects overall, when all factors are taken into consideration (including social and financial impacts.)
As a connoisseur of unintended consequences, I can't take issue with this reasoning, or at least am certainly not equipped to argue against it. I'm guessing you're no fan of the efforts to revive the woolly mammoth to fight climate change either.

Anne Elk
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2100 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 8:43 am 
My first thought about this has always been, But I hike there! Sometimes solo! These are not my beloved Katmai bears who are stuffed full of salmon and will just roll their eyes at you and keep walking if they meet you on a trail. But I find the argument made by biologists about why the area needs them quite convincing. And like others, I am far more worried about trigger happy people out there on the trails anymore. (And sheriffs that don't care about city slickers getting killed). In any case, this won't happen anytime soon.

RumiDude, Ski
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 6116 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 8:54 am 
zephyr wrote:
That's why I suggest that those who want to hike with grizzlies can do so in Montana or Alaska. ~z
The right, after we bring the grizz back we should close that land to hiking.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 15686 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 8:58 am 
There were big fires in NCNP this summer, burns are good Griz habitat for 10 years or so. moon.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Snowshovel
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 153 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 11:03 am 
Celticclimber wrote:
But to my shock. There are a lot of 'nature loving ' groups that have fought it. The biggest was/is the Mountaineers. Their rational is that having these bears out there will keep them (the Mountaineers) off of 'their ' trails.
I would challenge that the Mountaineers are against grizzly bear reintroduction. I think a fairer description of their stance is that they are in favor of allowing grizzly bears to reestablish a population on their own from population centers in the Canadian Cascades and southern Coast Range

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NightOwl
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2022
Posts: 9 | TRs | Pics
NightOwl
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 12:01 pm 
I am all in favor of keeping the wilderness wild. The popularity of hiking risks gentrifying the wilderness and turning into an overly domesticated and overcrowded experience. If grizzlies keep the crowds down I'm all for it. As others have pointed out, humans are about a thousands times more dangerous than grizzlies, so introducing grizzlies might actually make hiking safer by keeping apex predator humans away.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6564 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostFri Nov 11, 2022 12:26 pm 
I did some digging on The Mountaineer's advocacy website, and came across a joint comment letter re: Grizzy recovery. https://www.mountaineers.org/conservation/advocacy/conservation-position-letters The 2017 letter refers to an earlier letter that is also housed on their advocacy site. Sounds like they, as well as several other organizations within the WA Outdoor Alliance (Access Fund, American Alpine Club, American Whitewater, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, The Mountaineers Washington Climbers Coalition, Washington Trails Association) are concerned about continued access and how the management of the introduction might affect access. At no time do any of these organizations say they feel they own the trails. None of these organizations have programs that give them authorization on behalf of their membership to say "no" to the reintroduction of any species. Their concern is continued access if the program were implemented what new policies might be put into place that would affect access during and after implementation (management) - and their work is on behalf of all user groups they represent.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert

Ski, Slim
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > North Cascade National Park Grizzley Bear Reintroduction
  Happy Birthday skottt!
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