Forum Index > Trail Talk > North Cascade National Park Grizzley Bear Reintroduction
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 11:27 am 
@altasnob - Thanks for the link. As in every other argument I've seen supporting grizzly bear reintroduction, they make no valid case: They make the claim that there is "something missing", but fail to state exactly what the detrimental effects of that "missing thing" have been. Other than a brief mention about "aerating soil", there is nothing in that article that supports reintroduction other than them saying they wish it to be so. Are we to believe that black bears don't rip stuff to shreds and "aerate the soil" as well? I would call that a bit of a stretch. For that matter, I'd call it pure horseshit. Thanks again - there's a link to submit comment to NPS, which I did. All of these projects begin with "Purpose and Need". We still have not seen any definitive documentation that there is a "Need", nor anything in the way of describing exactly what beneficial effects such actions might have. It's still all smoke and mirrors.

"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
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3590 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 11:46 am 
Ski wrote:
It's still all smoke and mirrors.
Seriously Ski, I know you know better than that. You may not agree with the assessment that keystone animals such as grizzly bears are needed, but it is not all "smoke and mirrors". Smoke and mirrors implies deliberate deception on the part of biologists. Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."

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


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 12:07 pm 
Ski wrote:
They make the claim that there is "something missing", but fail to state exactly what the detrimental effects of that "missing thing" have been. Other than a brief mention about "aerating soil", there is nothing in that article that supports reintroduction other than them saying they wish it to be so. Are we to believe that black bears don't rip stuff to shreds and "aerate the soil" as well?
It seems believable that grizzlies, being much larger and stronger, are much better at aerating the soil than black bear. And grizzlies travel greater distances, meaning they are better at spreading seeds in their poop throughout the ecosystem. Grizzlies may travel in different places in the North Cascades than black bear. Bigger animal, bigger poop, more seeds spread to more places. I read a good article about how bison are naturally moving beyond Yellowstone National Park into the adjacent plains (and, of course, pissing off the ranchers). The bison are so much better adapted to the terrain and climate than the cows that were introduced from Spain. What I found particularly interesting is that the bison "wallowing" or laying day and moving around to bed and scratch their backs, is viewed as essential to the ecosystem. It also aerates the soil, spreads seeds and insects, and breaks up the monotony of the plains with depressions. It's these little things provided by these threatened species that may turn out to make a big difference in the greater ecosystem health and biodiversity. The same may be true for grizzlies. https://grist.org/indigenous/return-of-american-bison-environmental-boon-yellowstone-buffalo/

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


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 256 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 12:32 pm 
altasnob wrote:
It seems believable that grizzlies, being much larger and stronger, are much better at aerating the soil than black bear.
My assistant will be offering our standard black bear lawn aeration service. I personally will be upgrading my bear and offering grizzly aeration services for those discerning enough to demand the best

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


Joined: 23 Jun 2021
Posts: 80 | TRs | Pics
Worthington
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 2:21 pm 
slabbyd wrote:
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?
I couldn't find any reference online to this happening. Are you sure it really did?

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


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 160 | TRs | Pics
Bruce Albert
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 2:48 pm 
Worthington wrote:
Do you sort of romantically hope or wish this to be the case, or would you truly put money at even odds on their sustained presence?
A little of both to be perfectly honest. I do not believe my single sighting to be conclusive, nor am I convinced that the published scarcity of evidence of their presence (hair traps, etc.) is conclusive either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes I would put money at even odds on a small sustained presence at present. In general I believe species, all species, will expand into any range that will support them and will increase in population up to the number that a range will sustain. I believe this process occurs naturally and is not aided by human interference. For the current N Cascades/Pasayten that belief tells me Bears = Yes and Number = very few. I'm right, I'm wrong, others agree or disagree, so be it; that's still my belief. What rankles me about the issue is not the return of the animal but the specifics of proposals to achieve that by what I consider to be ill-conceived means.

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


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 256 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 3:42 pm 
Worthington wrote:
slabbyd wrote:
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?
I couldn't find any reference online to this happening. Are you sure it really did?
Just like the reports of the 1996 hair snare, it didn’t happen. Just baseless rumors

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



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 4:56 pm 
altasnob wrote:
The same may be true for grizzlies.
Then let's see the tangible evidence of that being the case.
Rumi wrote:
Seriously Ski, I know you know better than that. You may not agree with the assessment that keystone animals such as grizzly bears are needed, but it is not all "smoke and mirrors". Smoke and mirrors implies deliberate deception on the part of biologists.
I know better than to accept at face value anything coming from Conservation Northwest, which is one of the drivers of this effort and has been all along. "Smoke and mirrors" implies deception, and that is exactly what I am calling this, and I will stand by that statement until I am proven wrong with empirical evidence. Aldo Leopold, Henry David Thoreau, and all the rest of the philosophical stuff does not add up to one iota of empirical evidence of the claims that are being made regarding "an ecosystem out of balance." Evidence is evidence. Anything else isn't evidence.
Bruce Albert wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That is the same argument used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints when you ask them for the evidence of the white culture and civilization that they insist existed on the North American continent prior to it being occupied by the Native Americans James Churchward when asked for evidence about his claims of "The Lost Continent of Mu". And Q-Anon. Hilarious. (edited so as not to offend anyone 18:15 pst )

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

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


Joined: 23 Jun 2021
Posts: 80 | TRs | Pics
Worthington
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 5:40 pm 
Bruce Albert wrote:
Worthington wrote:
Do you sort of romantically hope or wish this to be the case, or would you truly put money at even odds on their sustained presence?
A little of both to be perfectly honest. I do not believe my single sighting to be conclusive, nor am I convinced that the published scarcity of evidence of their presence (hair traps, etc.) is conclusive either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes I would put money at even odds on a small sustained presence at present. In general I believe species, all species, will expand into any range that will support them and will increase in population up to the number that a range will sustain. I believe this process occurs naturally and is not aided by human interference. For the current N Cascades/Pasayten that belief tells me Bears = Yes and Number = very few. I'm right, I'm wrong, others agree or disagree, so be it; that's still my belief. What rankles me about the issue is not the return of the animal but the specifics of proposals to achieve that by what I consider to be ill-conceived means.
Fwiw biologists have had remote trail cameras (motion activated) all over the pasayten and upper Methow wilderness for years. They’ve photographed lynx, fisher, wolverine, wolves, crazy light colored black bears, and 0 grizzlies.

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


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 497 | TRs | Pics
Location: Getchell. Wash
Logbear
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 6:15 pm 
Ski wrote:
I know better than to accept at face value anything coming from Conservation Northwest
Conservation Northwest has been involved in the Fisher reintroduction for quite a while.
Ski wrote:
[i](* The fisher, on the other hand, has apparently been a roaring success!
Is there a bit of a contradiction here?

“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 7:17 pm 
nope. not at all. there are comments here on CNW from me going way back.

"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
Bruce Albert
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 160 | TRs | Pics
Bruce Albert
Member
PostWed Nov 30, 2022 11:57 pm 
Ski wrote:
Bruce Albert wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That is the same argument used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints when you ask them for the evidence of the white culture and civilization that they insist existed on the North American continent prior to it being occupied by the Native Americans James Churchward when asked for evidence about his claims of "The Lost Continent of Mu". And Q-Anon. Hilarious.
Jeepers. Condemned to the Resource Room with the kooks. That was bad enough, but even more troubling was when I embarked on a bit of research and learned my heresy had also caused me to be lumped in with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld: "Donald Rumsfeld, then US Secretary of Defense, argued against the argument from ignorance when discussing the lack of evidence for WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion: "Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist." The introduction was informative though: "Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century." I think this was once about bears and their homeland. Having said what I have to say about bears, and having little interest in the various digressions (some of which were my own fault), I will now move on. Peace out, brother, and hugs and kisses to those mermaids.

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



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Dec 01, 2022 7:12 am 
Some people require tangible, empirical evidence that a thing is true before they accept it as being true. Other people will believe anything you tell them. I fall into the first category.

"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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1406 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostThu Dec 01, 2022 8:02 am 
Ski, the problem is, it could take a thousand years to be able to identify tangible evidence that the extinction of the grizzly from the North Cascades has damaged the ecosystem. If we could keep you alive for a thousand years, and then shove this evidence in front of your face, you would say, damn, sorry, I was wrong, we should have done what we can to save the grizzly. I take the position that the elimination of any species from its natural ecosystem has a negative effect on that ecosystem. Doesn't matter if it is large, like a grizzly, or small like an insect or microbe. I think as humans, and in particular, wealthy humans, we have a duty to do everything we can to maintain the biodiversity on this planet. We cannot sit here today and claim that the extinction of grizzlies from the North Cascades is no big deal. Grizzlies have only been extinct from the North Cascades for a few decades and it will take hundreds of years for the effect of this extinction to manifest itself.

ChinookPass, Logbear, Waterman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 1328 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostThu Dec 01, 2022 8:23 am 
Just like before if the NCNP decides to drop or not continue with the reintroduction. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) Will send the DOI a 60-day notice of intent to sue that asserts that the “reintroduction termination violates the Endangered Species Act.” One of those typical cry until you get your way tactics these groups pull. Mean while the taxpayers pay for another over inflated study to be done.

Ski
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 Traildad!
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