400 Grizzlies in the Cascades

Tommy Barker wrote:After taking a quick look at some statistics, since 2000 in North America there have been 10 deadly grizzly bear attacks (from Backpacker Magazine). Compared to the 26 fatal dog attacks every year, I think that the safety aspect is a rather poor argument. In addition, the concern about a lack of food to me seems to be a decision that should be left do those with advance degrees in wildlife biology and ecology. They are actually trained to make those decisions.

I like/support the idea of reintroduction.

But I'm pretty sure that dogs are not on the endangered species list, so I think it may be difficult to directly compare the fatality rates. I seriously doubt that if there were two or thousand (or whatever the grizzly population is) dogs in the US (instead of 80 million) that there would be 26 dog-related fatalities per year.

Tommy Barker wrote:After taking a quick look at some statistics, since 2000 in North America there have been 10 deadly grizzly bear attacks (from Backpacker Magazine). Compared to the 26 fatal dog attacks every year, I think that the safety aspect is a rather poor argument. In addition, the concern about a lack of food to me seems to be a decision that should be left do those with advance degrees in wildlife biology and ecology. They are actually trained to make those decisions.

I don't believe those numbers are informative on their own. If google's top result is accurate, there are about 1,800 grizzly bears living in the US and 70-80 million dogs living in the US. So with your numbers there is one fatal attack for every 120,000 dogs, and one fatal attack for every 180 grizzlies. The concern also has to do with the location for the proposed reintroduction- an area that many people here enjoy spending time in, far from medical attention.

Agree that any reliable knowledge about a lack of food is going to be the result of careful study, but the concern is a serious one even if there are no wildlife biologists commenting on this thread.

Tommy Barker wrote:After taking a quick look at some statistics, since 2000 in North America there have been 10 deadly grizzly bear attacks (from Backpacker Magazine). Compared to the 26 fatal dog attacks every year, I think that the safety aspect is a rather poor argument. In addition, the concern about a lack of food to me seems to be a decision that should be left do those with advance degrees in wildlife biology and ecology. They are actually trained to make those decisions.

Ya know, Tommy, statistics like that are relevant, however it's useful to consider this as a measure of probability based on frequency of exposure. If we determine the number of people exposed to a dogs attack range, and consider the amount of time they're in that range; then collect the same kind of data for Grizzly bears and compare them, you'd probably see that you're still more likely to go down from a Grizzly bear.

There are people trained in specific ways with advanced degrees that are assigned to make these judgements, yes--I believe that. Would the bears survival be plausible with these numbers?-Probably. That doesn't matter to me, because the risk is still there, and it's a terrible way to die.

Certain factors like roads, people, and mountains can limit a bears movement at a time when they're crowded, competing for turf, and basically just finding a balance in the space available. A bear will inevitably be displaced, a little irritable/stressed as he/she finds a new home, or a mama bear is wandering about avoiding the males to protect her new cubs--she's tense when she stumbles into a person and charges them from across a drainage. These examples happen, and they will happen here, it's as simple as that. I don't see the point to bringing them back.

Regardless of the outcome of this decision, I will still aim to spend several days a year there. Good luck, everybody!

For all those who make the point of there being far more dogs than grizzly bears I certainly agree. I only meant it as a refrence and not for a direct comparison. Sorry if it was miss construed.

All I'm saying is I live in Montana very close to one of the richest and most thriving populations of Grizzly in the lower 48 and entering grizzly country simply entails extra precautions and a minor amount of added anxiety. The healthy and stabilizing elk and deer populations that we have seen in Yellowstone park and the overall return to ecological equilibrium in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem where charismatic megafauna are concerned following the reintroduction of apex predators (grey wolf, grizzly) is IMO way worth the added precaution when hiking to a backcountry crag or going backpacking. Y'all can deal with it too.

Bear spray is your friend. Hang your food. You'll be fine. The grizzlies won't without plans like this.

Healyje wrote:If we can't share with Grizzlies and Wolves (and all large mammalian species) then it's our loss in terms of impoverished wild spaces. It's also just another indication there are far too many of us. I'm old and glad of it. Will all large mammalian species be all but extinct at the turn of the next century? Quite possibly and that's not a world I would want to live in.

+1

B-Mkll wrote:All I'm saying is I live in Montana very close to one of the richest and most thriving populations of Grizzly in the lower 48 and entering grizzly country simply entails extra precautions and a minor amount of added anxiety. The healthy and stabilizing elk and deer populations that we have seen in Yellowstone park and the overall return to ecological equilibrium in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem where charismatic megafauna are concerned following the reintroduction of apex predators (grey wolf, grizzly) is IMO way worth the added precaution when hiking to a backcountry crag or going backpacking. Y'all can deal with it too. Bear spray is your friend. Hang your food. You'll be fine. The grizzlies won't without plans like this.

And another +1.

George W wrote: Wow! The risks pertain less to those who know a lot about wilderness, and more to those who are vulnerable visitors near the roads: children, ignorant city dwellers, generally vulnerable people. The majority of people on this site are not the likeliest victims of an unruly bear prowling near Hwy. 20 in July. Don't be a dick, RMS

Oh, give me a fucking break. The OP conjured the typical knee-jerk hysteria that non-climbers, gym climbers, and windshield tourists always have.

I have taken my kids climbing in grizzly country. Yes, I take precautions. In fact, I double up on them since my kids are involved.

I'm sorry if mocking the OP seems to make me a dick. But I am deeply worried about public lands and their accessibility right now. And I have no use for people making arguments that could further restrict access.

If you are afraid a bear will eat you, then don't hike/climb/camp where bears live. Pretty simple.

RMS wrote: Oh, give me a fucking break. The OP conjured the typical knee-jerk hysteria that non-climbers, gym climbers, and windshield tourists always have. I have taken my kids climbing in grizzly country. Yes, I take precautions. In fact, I double up on them since my kids are involved. I'm sorry if mocking the OP seems to make me a dick. But I am deeply worried about public lands and their accessibility right now. And I have no use for people making arguments that could further restrict access. If you are afraid a bear will eat you, then don't hike/climb/camp where bears live. Pretty simple.

On the contrary, I didn't feel mocked, nor did I take your or mkII's comments seriously.
For the both of you to assume that cascade climbers have never traveled or climbed in grizzly country is simply laughable. OMG, "bear spray is your friend" thanks for that tidbit.

Speaking for myself, I own a house on the Canadian border a mile east of the Columbia River and a neighbor of mine had a grizzly encounter not more than 200 yards from my front door. I found grizzly scat in my driveway and that was 10 years ago. I've hunted achery and rifle since I was a child in wa state, for the last 2 decades in NE wa where they have been trying to repopulate the Grizzley. The only years I wasn't hunting I was in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war contractor because I'm a former special Ops commando.

So your comment is irrelevant in the context of we're scared of grizzley in the cascades.
The video I provided is real and took place in your rich habitat of grizzly in montana and the guy had "Your friend the bear spray" Davy "RMS" Crockett....

But where you're super wrong is your comment about access. Because once the grizzly has been reintroduced, such as the yellowstone eco system, access has been restricted and in some cases areas closed.

I hope we can get back to the real discussion at hand...

Eric Thompson wrote: Because once the grizzly has been reintroduced, such as the yellowstone eco system, access has been restricted and in some cases areas closed.

Do you have more details on that?

Well, if they need space to re-establish and closures or restrictions are deemed necessary, then we're back to are we willing to share or not...

Optimistic wrote: Do you have more details on that?

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/bearclosures.htm

Eric Thompson wrote: nps.gov/yell/learn/manageme…

Wow, I have to admit that is an awful lot of restrictions. People should look at the map and associated explanation (all by the NPS).

"Sharing" is good and might well be the way to go, but if this Yellowstone map is any guide, the impacts could be significant.

While it's true that Yellowstone's bear management areas do incorporate seasonal closures, there was never a grizzly reintroduction program. The big bears have been there all along. Grizzly numbers have certainly increased in recent decades, due in large to ESA provisions and NPS efforts such as the management areas mapped in the link above.

Regarding the mythical grizzlies of the Colorado San Juans, I highly doubt that they still reside in the Centennial State. Sure, many years passed between the 1950s when wildlife experts documented the "last" verified Colorado griz sighting and 1979/1980 when a bow hunter surprisingly killed the old sow, setting into motion the current speculation that they still exist in the southern Rockies. Biologists got it wrong before so I suppose it's possible that they are wrong now, but there are so many people running around the Colorado wilderness these days for there not to be at least one verified sighting in the last 35 years. David Petersen and Rick Bass have both penned good books on the history of grizzlies in Colorado.

Optimistic wrote:...the impacts could be significant.

I wouldn't expect otherwise until they're deemed established, or, we could do what we do with wolves and pay lip service, but in reality doing everything possible to insure they don't get re-established.

Do those who are pro-Grizzly establishment in the North Cascades believe that this is an issue of preserving the species?

Note: The NPS does not cite that as a reason.

Or, is this favoritism rooted deep in your psyche to maintain shared space with all living things? Do you believe this to be a worthy cause without exception? If not, what are your exceptions?

Nobody tackled my comment earlier about introduction to Yosemite. Why is that?

Eric Thompson wrote:The National Park service put poison in all the lakes a few years back to kill all of the fish in lakes in the Park.

Got any information about this?

Please respond with your ideas and discussion as this really needs to be discussed further.
I don't want to talk the most but I do have a few more points and a prediction.

I was wrong on the number of 400. Thank you for correcting me.

app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.…

The link above is to the Washington State code that makes it illegal to transplant grizzly bears to the state.

It seems the Feds and "educated biologists" can ignore our states law if it fits with their agenda. There is also the question of when the feds deem the bears "recovered" and the federal money dries up is it our state left with the bill?

Unintended consequences have arisen out of some of the reintroduction efforts. Have you read about the coywolves? Its a cross between a coyote and a wolf and it's happening at an increasing rate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywo…

HealyJ, thanks for weighing in on the sharing issue, i value your comments and ideas. Would you be willing to reintroduce the bears if it meant closing your favorite climb or hike in the cascades and having a fed agency decide when you can use public lands because the bears need their beauty space?

For me the answer is no bears if they are going to shut down access to public lands.

Back to the restoring the eco system discussion for a moment. We are never going to turn the cascades back into the old growth masterpiece it was in the 1700's. The amazing runs of wild salmon are gone, the huge herds of animals are gone the old growth forest is gone. Putting Grizzly bears back into the population doesn't change any of those things.

If you think about it, we have a lot of black bears in the cascades doing what bears do for the eco system. Crushing logs for bugs, eating berries eating old weak animals and so forth. So the question is what does a grizzly bear do for a forest that a black bear doesn't? Please correct me if i'm wrong but i'd guess it can eat larger animals. Then we would be talking about elk.

Here are the ten identified elk herds in Washington state.....

The elk herds of Washington are now found in ten major areas of the state. The two biggest herds are the Yakima (12,000 animals) and Mount St. Helens (11,000-13,000 animals). The Olympic (7,000-9,000 animals), Willapa Hills (7,000-9,000 animals), Colockum (5,600 animals), Blue Mountains (5,300 animals), North Rainier (1,500-2,500 animals), South Rainier (1,500-2,500 animals), Selkirk (1,000-2,000 animals), and North Cascades (1,250 animals) comprise the remaining populations.

Of those two are in the "North Cascades Grizzly Recovery Zone" the North Cascades herd (1,250 animals) and the Colockum (5,600 animals).

I'll circle back to the herds in a moment, in NE Washington the Grizzlies they dropped off all went north into a more attractive habitat and a greater mating pool. After all they don't need passports to run to Canada. So, I would guess if you wanted to have a successful grizzly reintroduction in the cascades you'd have to drop them by the Colockum herd of elk the's just south of Wenatchee. Because if you drop the bears north of the 20 on either side of ross lake then the bears feel pressure from the south and flee north to a greater eco system with a better mating pool.

I then predict that the Colockum herds response to this new griz pressure would be to move south to the safety of the much larger Yakima and St Helens herds. I would guess the grizzly would follow the herds south and the feds would have doubled their recovery area in one move.

That brings me back to mkII's comment...."charismatic megafauna"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chari…

"Charismatic megafauna are large animal species with widespread popular appeal, which are often used by environmental activists to achieve environmentalist goals.

Environmental activists and proponents of ecotourism seek to use the leverage provided by charismatic and well-known species to achieve more subtle and far-reaching goals in species and biodiversity conservation.[citation needed] By directing public attention to the diminishing numbers of giant panda due to habitat loss, for example, conservation groups can raise support for the protection of the panda and for the entire ecosystem of which it is a part.[citation needed] (The giant panda is portrayed in the logo of the World Wide Fund for Nature.)"

As far as I can tell the feds want to dart and fly grizzly to increase their own funding and control of federal lands in the face of our own laws that prevent it. I don't think more bears will change the eco system of the cascades for better or worse in most ways but the deer and elk will pay a heavy toll. So if we lose access to gain nothing....what's the point?

I think this discussion and the public process are just for show as the feds will do what ever they want. As testament to that we have a state law that prevents it and the feds are still moving forward.

I would love to hear what other people think.

Kyle Tarry wrote: Got any information about this?

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/04/north_cascades_national_park_t.html

Eric Thompson wrote: Because once the grizzly has been reintroduced, such as the yellowstone eco system, access has been restricted and in some cases areas closed. I hope we can get back to the real discussion at hand...

Grizzlies weren't reintroduced into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)--they were already there. The closures and restrictions of Yellowstone National Park, referenced in your other entry, are not in any way representative of restrictions of non-NPS areas. Parks (especially Yellowstone) have a strong preservation/protection ethic that is not replicated in non-NPS public lands. Seasonal closures for wildlife are common in NPS areas (e.g. peregrine falcon nests, wolf den sites, bald eagle nests, ungulate winter range, etc.). Also you have to realize that Yellowstone NP was central to the preservation (and eventual de-listing--the primary goal of the Endangered Species Act) of grizzly bears, and so it was incumbent on them to both protect bear habitat from human incursion, as well as protect humans from high density bear areas (human-bear conflicts result in bear losses). In general, most NPS areas restrict travel related to bear activity with the primary intent of protecting people from human-bear conflicts, most commonly related to improper food storage by visitors.

With North Cascades NP, such restrictions are unlikely, or would be an order of magnitude less due to the much lower number of bears in the area. See page 125 of the EIS: "Some front country areas that may be highly desirable to visitors (i.e., ranger stations, highways, roads used by visitors to access front country areas, and locations proximate to bathroom facilities, picnic grounds, campsites, and boat launches) are not typically preferred habitat for seasonal grizzly bear use; therefore, adverse impacts on these areas would be unlikely, especially given the small number of grizzly
bears to be released initially and the designation of a single release site. Closure of park or forest facilities and main roads are not expected to occur. Given that only two trails were temporarily closed on national
forest lands in the NCDE because of grizzly bears in the 10-year period from 1990 to 2000 (FWS 2016d), it is reasonable to assume that any trail and area closures would be temporary, localized, and limited." The NCDE mentioned is the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, which includes Glacier National Park, and contains an estimated 765 grizzly bears, over three times the number of bears targeted as the restoration goal of the North Cascades Ecosystem.

My point in responding is that many of the concerns brought up are addressed in the EIS, if you're willing to a) read the EIS, and b) put some thought into what you're reading. If, after doing both of these, you agree/disagree with what is written, then provide comments on the EIS during the public comment period.

Bringing the existence of a reintroduction plan to the masses is always a good idea, but make sure you provide accurate information.