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


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2154 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 8:12 pm 
Does anyone have any idea how dangerous grizzlies are relative to black bears? The stats indicate each of the species kills about one person per year in the lower 48. Fatal Bear Attacks in North America Also, there are about 500,000 black bears and 1,500 grizzlies. Does that make grizzlies about 330 times more dangerous than a black bears? If each black bear has ten encounters with a human being per year, then the odds of a being in a fatal incident per encounter are 1 in 5 million. Applying the same encounter rate for grizzlies, the odds of your being killed in an encounter are 1 in 15,000. No wonder no one here seems have been in a fatal attack, who has had 15,000 grizzly encounters? (Math humor!) I wouldn’t be surprised if both types of bears have more than 10 encounters with humans on average per year making the risk ratios even lower. Also, it’s possible black bears have more encounters on average than grizzlies thus making them even more benign relative to grizzlies. How many encounters with a human per year would a grizzly in the North Cascades have? If we had an estimate for the number of encounters per year and the risk per encounter we could estimate the carnage. These are all arm chair numbers. It would be great if someone did some rigorous studies and made an evidence-based estimate for the human lives that would be lost due to reintroduction.

Joseph
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 8:29 pm 
The numbers in BC are a good guide. A report from 2019
Quote:
More than 3,800 calls have been placed to B.C.’s RAPP line for black bear conflicts since April. That’s compared to the seasonal average of 2,400. A further 180 calls were for grizzly bear conflicts.
So in BC , which is a fairly similar environment to the North Cascades black bear run ins are 20x more common than run ins with Griz. Since 1970 there have been 19 black bear attacks in Washington -- so if Grizz do come back to the North Cascades , we might expect 2 Grizz attacks over the next century. ETA: Only 1 of the 19 black bear attacks since 1970 has been fatal in Washington. In 6 decades of venturing into the Cascades and Olympics I've observed black bears 4 times. I've had a black bear steal food once, but that was in the 60's when we had no clue about how to properly hang food. In Denali Park, I once had the privilege of observing a sow Grizz with two cubs playing on a snowbank at a range of about 80 yards for about 45 minutes before another shuttle bus came rumbling along and spooked them and they ran off into the brush.

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 8:55 pm 
Ski wrote:
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.
It isn’t “allowing nature to be nature” when humans built highways and towns and all sorts of other infrastructure between where the bears are now and the North Cascades, preventing a natural reintegration. Unless you are proposing to destroy every human development between Chilliwack and Penticton? Then nature could be nature, but I doubt our neighbors to the north would go for it. If you don’t want grizzlies in Washington, just say that. Don’t hide behind the natural reintegration lie.

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


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6603 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 9:03 pm 
Randito wrote:
The numbers in BC are a good guide.
Maybe, but....out of how many people, hiking where? Maybe more people were in black bear territory than brown bear territory. Or the people around black bears were less careful about how they hike than those who hike in brown bear territory. And what's the definition of "conflict?" Some might say any encounter where a black bear didn't leave when requested is a conflict. Humans are so pompous. Stats are hard to rely on, not knowing all the variables. (Maybe the study does address all that, though) But the numbers you provide are a good start for data. Gotta start somewhere.

"..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
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
slabbyd
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 276 | TRs | Pics
slabbyd
Member
PostMon Nov 28, 2022 9:53 pm 
Secret Agent Man wrote:
It isn’t “allowing nature to be nature” when humans built highways and towns and all sorts of other infrastructure between where the bears are now and the North Cascades, preventing a natural reintegration. Unless you are proposing to destroy every human development between Chilliwack and Penticton? Then nature could be nature, but I doubt our neighbors to the north would go for it.
There ain’t much between Hope and Penticton other than Hwy-3. Very little infrastructure over a huge spread of land. I find it hard to believe this creates some sort of virtual fence keeping Grizzlies out. Something like 20+ years ago Canada reintroduced a small number of grizzlies in this exact area. Wound be curious to know what happened to them. They never came south. Did they fizzle out or all make a beeline due north?

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 10:10 pm 
Secret Agent Man wrote:
It isn’t “allowing nature to be nature” when humans Canadians built highways and towns and all sorts of other infrastructure between where the bears are now and the North Cascades, preventing a natural reintegration.
FIFY

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

runup
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 10:14 pm 
Secret Agent Man wrote:
Don’t hide behind the natural reintegration lie.
Oh, yeah... you mean like the "natural reintegration lie" about the Gray Wolf coming into Washington State from Canada, Oregon, and Idaho? Details are all included (with numbers and dates) in the Washington State Wolf Management Plan It's a hell of a read... a bit lengthier than the one on the goats, but not nearly as tedious as the National Historic Preservation Act or some other tomes I've had to wade through. Try it - you'll like it. Facts are always refreshing.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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 10:17 pm 
Bernardo wrote:
"... an evidence-based estimate for the human lives that would be lost due to reintroduction...."
If someone would be kind enough to loan me their bong for a few days, I'll bet I could come up with an answer.

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

RumiDude
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 10:23 pm 
Bounties and hunting permits for Grizz where eliminated long ago in Washington, If the North Cascades / Pasayten were a favorable habitat for Grizz , considering that Grizz are present in Southern BC they would have reestablished at least some population by now. But Grizz seem as elusive as Sasquatch. The WDFW does relocate / kill problematic black bears as needed. The idea that if Grizz are reintroduced to the North Cascades that they start breeding like rabbits and swarming into populated areas and the WDFW will be powerless to manage the problem might be fodder for a "Z grade" movie.

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 10:40 pm 
Randito wrote:
This is standard inability to understand how to apply probability to everyday activities argument.
Randito wrote:
The air travel argument is classic of this type of misguided thinking
Are we discussing the same comment? I'm not seeing where I made any sort of comparison or placed various risks faced by the NCNP user in any sort of hierarchy, thereby ignoring one and elevating another. I simply stated that no matter how overwhelmingly good the odds, a person using those odds as part of their reasoning structure in a decision to go/not go to the NCNP has to realize there's no guarantee they'll wind up on the happy side of those probabilities. Every now and then somebody's going to buck that one in a million chance and come up on the wrong side of the wrong bear. But yeah, I am 100% for the return of the bears. I do think the bears should and can figure out the details for themselves, without further mucking around by the humans who messed it up in the first place.

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 11:10 pm 
Bruce Albert wrote:
I simply stated that no matter how overwhelmingly good the odds, a person using those odds as part of their reasoning structure in a decision to go/not go to the NCNP has to realize there's no guarantee they'll wind up on the happy side of those probabilities. Every now and then somebody's going to buck that one in a million chance and come up on the wrong side of the wrong bear.
Sure -- also on average 3 people per month die in motor vehicle collisions in Skagit, Whatcom and Okanogan counties. Yet your focus is on the one person in fifty years that gets killed by a bear vs the 1800 fatal motor vehicle collisions in the same areas over the same time period. I think the fear of being eaten is amplifiying the percieved risk considerably.

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 11:56 pm 
Bruce Albert wrote:
"I do think the bears should and can figure out the details for themselves..."
And that is, all things considered, the best possible management strategy: do nothing. At some point in the future, the Provincial Government of British Columbia may choose to effect remedy to the issue of fragmented wildlife migratory corridors. It is possible that such action might have positive effects for the resident caribou in the Selkirks (if any of them still exist) and would allow bears that might be so inclined an avenue of egress. Doing that requires that we do exactly nothing. "Sometimes the best course of action is no action at all." - Harry Cody, District Ranger, Randle Ranger District, GPNF

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
PostTue Nov 29, 2022 4:41 am 
Exactly

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


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6603 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostTue Nov 29, 2022 10:54 am 
slabbyd wrote:
There ain’t much between Hope and Penticton other than Hwy-3
Damn fine name for an album. Or Scripture. Jesus missed out on that one. Would have been popular, I think. But overall, interesting discussion and information, which I haven't really looked at much. No offense; but I don't know that we'll ever need to use it, as I doubt the grizz re-intro will ever happen. Then again, I didn't think the bridge over the Stilly at Big 4 would be rebuilt....On the other hand, Index-Galena Road isn't done yet....

"..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
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Lazyhiker
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Jul 2022
Posts: 81 | TRs | Pics
Lazyhiker
Member
PostTue Nov 29, 2022 2:25 pm 
What would be artificial about reintroducing grizzlies to the north Cascades? I’m pretty sure it would be a real reintroduction.

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