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



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9014 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 9:04 am 
Joseph wrote:
Randito wrote:
You are far more likely to die or be injured driving to /from the trailhead.
Maybe. But hardly an argument for artificially introducing more hazards/danger into the area once you survive the trip to the TH.
Just as adding a miniscule additional risk to an activity that already carries considerable risk is not a rational argument against something. Far more SAR activity occurs in AK, BC and MT due to ordinary self imposed risks such as tripping and falling, getting lost , hypothermia, etc than due to Griz. The risk isn't zero but you more likely to be struck by lightning than attacked by any bear, black or griz. Hyper irrational fear of bears isn't a scientific argument against any wildlife management decision.

Secret Agent Man
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Mountainfisherman
Member
Member


Joined: 26 May 2010
Posts: 110 | TRs | Pics
Mountainfisherman
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 12:37 pm 
So your argument is that you're an elitist outdoorsman and the rest of you that aren't stay home. Attractive.

Joseph
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Worthington
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jun 2021
Posts: 41 | TRs | Pics
Worthington
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 1:31 pm 
For people who think there already is a small population of Grizzly bears breeding in Washington, and has been for the last few years or more: Why have no people photographed one? (everyone has a camera with them at all times for the past decade) Why has no physical evidence (hair/bone/roadkill) been confirmed? ——- It wouldn’t at all shock me if such evidence were to be found eventually, but based on the evidence we have now (and the popularity of backcountry users with cameras and the web) I’m surprised how many people think it’s more likely than not to conclude that we already have a few of these 600lb apex predators walking around and they just never get observed. Reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg joke: “maybe Bigfoot IS blurry…”

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


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 159 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 2:11 pm 
Mountainfisherman wrote:
So your argument is that you're an elitist outdoorsman and the rest of you that aren't stay home. Attractive.
That makes no sense

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


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 159 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 2:13 pm 
Worthington wrote:
For people who think there already is a small population of Grizzly bears breeding in Washington, and has been for the last few years or more: Why have no people photographed one? (everyone has a camera with them at all times for the past decade) Why has no physical evidence (hair/bone/roadkill) been confirmed? ——- It wouldn’t at all shock me if such evidence were to be found eventually, but based on the evidence we have now (and the popularity of backcountry users with cameras and the web) I’m surprised how many people think it’s more likely than not to conclude that we already have a few of these 600lb apex predators walking around and they just never get observed. Reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg joke: “maybe Bigfoot IS blurry…”
Exactly. And the effort put in so far is very substantial.

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


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 1133 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 4:29 pm 
???

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


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 159 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 4:33 pm 
What are you questioning?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bruce Albert
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 121 | TRs | Pics
Bruce Albert
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 5:04 pm 
Worthington wrote:
For people who think there already is a small population of Grizzly bears breeding in Washington, and has been for the last few years or more: Why have no people photographed one? (everyone has a camera with them at all times for the past decade) Why has no physical evidence (hair/bone/roadkill) been confirmed?
Well, I didn't take a photo because the bear was too far away for a useful shot. But we did have a good long look through binocs and one of us had 20 years mining exploration in AK with mucho bear encounters. I trusted his judgement on species ID and still do. This was near Benchmark Mountain about 35 years ago. A scarcity of sightings of a species does not conflate with their absence. In sixty-plus active and reasonably observant years in the Cascades I have seen, for example, exactly two Cougars...a similarly controversial species whose population is widely accepted to be on the increase and a possible if rare threat to humans. One was dead on US2 at Eagle Falls and the other was crossing the highway at Scenic. Go figure. (OTOH over time I sense that quite a few Cougars have seen me and passed on the opportunity...) With respect to debates above about the statistical rarity of fatal human/bear encounters I submit that if one is going to make decisions based on such statistics they have an obligation to realize and accept that they could be on the unlucky side of the numbers. For example, the fact that air travel is overwhelmingly safe according to the numbers is of absolutely no value or comfort to the unlucky few plummeting earthward in one of the rare mishaps. So it is with large carnivores: one in a thousand, one in a million, one in a brazillion...a statistical probability of close to zero is not the same as zero itself; sooner or later some unlucky soul's going down. Got to have that possibility realized and accepted when you head out.

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


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 159 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 5:09 pm 
Bruce Albert wrote:
(OTOH over time I sense that quite a few Cougars have seen me and passed on the opportunity...)
At the Index Tavern?

Secret Agent Man, Waterman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Snowshovel
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 159 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 5:19 pm 
Bruce Albert wrote:
Well, I didn't take a photo because the bear was too far away for a useful shot. But we did have a good long look through binocs and one of us had 20 years mining exploration in AK with mucho bear encounters. I trusted his judgement on species ID and still do. This was near Benchmark Mountain about 35 years ago. A scarcity of sightings of a species does not conflate with their absence. In sixty-plus active and reasonably observant years in the Cascades I have seen, for example, exactly two Cougars...a similarly controversial species whose population is widely accepted to be on the increase and a possible if rare threat to humans. One was dead on US2 at Eagle Falls and the other was crossing the highway at Scenic. Go figure.
I’ve never seen a cougar, and my forester friend has seen only one. But the difference is that physical evidence such as hair and camera trap photos are many. And it seems like there is exactly zero hair and camera trap photos of grizzlies. And hundreds of hair traps and thousands of game cameras have been set in the last forty years.

Worthington, Secret Agent Man
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Secret Agent Man
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2015
Posts: 183 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Secret Agent Man
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 5:36 pm 
It’s indisputable that there are exceedingly few grizzlies in the North Cascades, and it seems likely that those that are in the Cascades are mostly if not all on the Canadian side of the border. The question is if natural reintegration from the Coast Mountains or Rockies is possible. Pretty much every actual expert says no, it isn’t realistically possible, there’s too much human development in the way. So the question is if we want to bring them here or not. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of that question. I believe grizzlies in our North Cascades wilderness would be a good thing, but I also like being about to go out without worrying about grizzly closures or having to be in a group of four. But “they’re already here” or “let them reintegrate themselves” are not reasonable. If people are anti-grizzly, that’s okay, just admit it.

Logbear, altasnob
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9014 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 5:48 pm 
Bruce Albert wrote:
So it is with large carnivores: one in a thousand, one in a million, one in a brazillion...a statistical probability of close to zero is not the same as zero itself; sooner or later some unlucky soul's going down. Got to have that possibility realized and accepted when you head out.
This is standard inability to understand how to apply probability to everyday activities argument. Yes we absolutely must recognize the risk posed by bears, while 100% ignoring the risk posed other activities that regularly kill far far more people. The air travel argument is classic of this type of misguided thinking. Driving to a destination ( say Los Angeles) far more dangerous than flying to the same location, but some people perceive the risk as higher because when an airplane crashes it occupies the media landscape for a couple days, but there isn't much media coverage of people dying in motor vehicle collisions.

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



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12273 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 6:20 pm 
Bruce Albert wrote:
A scarcity of sightings of a species does not conflate with their absence.
I cannot argue with that point. The rest of the statement, however, just doesn't pass the sniff test. I've seen exactly two cougars in the wild - both of them sitting in the road (go figure.) But unlike grizzly bears, I've seen all kinds of cougar tracks along the edges of gravel bars - that "physical evidence" thing. All the anecdote in the galaxy doesn't tally up to fact. It's still anecdote.
Secret Agent Man wrote:
But “they’re already here” or “let them reintegrate themselves” are not reasonable.
By what metric are those arguments not reasonable? The "pro bear" side of the argument is based in "let nature be nature", is it not? How is simply allowing the bears to enter as they please (as was the case with the Gray Wolf's repatriation into Washington State) anything other than allowing nature to be nature? Explain.

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

Joseph
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Joseph
Joseph



Joined: 13 Jun 2018
Posts: 204 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Joseph
Joseph
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 7:10 pm 
Randito wrote:
Just as adding a miniscule additional risk to an activity that already carries considerable risk is not a rational argument against something.
You don't know that the risk would be miniscule - that's an assumption on your part which I reject. You cannot preclude the possibility that in the aftermath of reintroduction, parts of the N.cascades will be more dangerous than before. If you want to hike among the grizzlies, why not go to Montana, or Alaska?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9014 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 7:34 pm 
Joseph wrote:
Randito wrote:
Just as adding a miniscule additional risk to an activity that already carries considerable risk is not a rational argument against something.
You don't know that the risk would be miniscule - that's an assumption on your part which I reject. You cannot preclude the possibility that in the aftermath of reintroduction, parts of the N.cascades will be more dangerous than before. If you want to hike among the grizzlies, why not go to Montana, or Alaska?
What is the basis for your belief that the risk of Grizzly bear attack will be higher than it is MT where the incidence of attacks is quite small. 11 attacks in 50 years Far larger numbers of people die or are maimed by falls and other ordinary mishaps in the mountains. Is it the possiblity of being eaten after you are dead that has your knickers in a twist?

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 geobob, like2thruhike!
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