400 Grizzlies in the Cascades

Eric Thompson wrote:You could make a better argument for useing the bear money on invasive species. Especially if we're only talking about a few dozen grizzlies.

I would disagree.

Optimistic wrote: 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.

A lot of those closures are winter into mid-spring, so they would prevent visits by 5-10 people a year, max, regardless. Last I heard, the pole of overland inaccessibility in the lower 48 is still just South of lake Yellowstone. These areas are huge and hard to get to, so closing them to people just doesn't affect that many people.

As far as the wilderness/urban interface, I would argue that policy makers should hold possible mailings as a major issue, because the typical response is to kill the bear afterwards. If so many folks are visiting the area that bear attacks increase (so, there's a bear and human density similar to the Yellowstone region), then that's as much a problem for the grizzly as the folks.

By and large, I'm for reintroduction of grizzly. But if the end result is that most of them get shot after creating problems for people, what exactly was the point?

Eric Thompson wrote:That all sounds great but boiled down the reasons were black bears basic don't eat roots and it makes for a richer eco system. You could make a better argument for useing the bear money on invasive species. Especially if we're only talking about a few dozen grizzlies.

Your summation tells me I utterly failed in providing you any background for a more complete understanding on your part.

And in general, federal funding systems are commonly set up so there isn't an "either-or" funding process. Different pots of money go to different projects based on the goals of the funding source. To take it to an extreme, just because we build one less $25 million fighter jet doesn't mean that those funds will go to conservation.

Another consideration, is that the large mammals do travel long distances. Unless there is an impassable area in the North Cascades, you probably either already have, or will soon have, immigrants from Canada. With a plan in place, that reality is easier to manage. "Reintroduction" may just be adding to that gene pool and speeding up a process that is happening anyway.

In Idaho, this is exactly what happened with wolves. When "reintroduction" came about, the animals were already here.

Eric, I'm sorry you missed the points about grizzlies and black bears both being part of the system. Among other things, grizzlies keep the black bears in line. Grizzlies also need larger, wilder, territories, so if people can successfully make enough space for them, habitat for the rest is more certain.

Best, Helen

It's part of a much larger and longer term 'Yellowstone-to-Yukon' wildlife corridor plan...

Healyje wrote:It's part of a much larger and longer term 'Yellowstone-to-Yukon' wildlife corridor plan...

But North Cascades part isn't on your map? Yet. :-)

FWIW, wolves are now just about in Boise. Too low here to ever have grizzly, but everything else we ever had wanders right through downtown, or close to it. Well, no bison, but they were barely this far west. No condors, ....Yet.

Southern species are spreading north, too. Idaho has had ringtail sightings!

Best, Helen

Petsfed wrote: A lot of those closures are winter into mid-spring, so they would prevent visits by 5-10 people a year, max, regardless. Last I heard, the pole of overland inaccessibility in the lower 48 is still just South of lake Yellowstone. These areas are huge and hard to get to, so closing them to people just doesn't affect that many people. As far as the wilderness/urban interface, I would argue that policy makers should hold possible mailings as a major issue, because the typical response is to kill the bear afterwards. If so many folks are visiting the area that bear attacks increase (so, there's a bear and human density similar to the Yellowstone region), then that's as much a problem for the grizzly as the folks. By and large, I'm for reintroduction of grizzly. But if the end result is that most of them get shot after creating problems for people, what exactly was the point?

I'd like to see some actual numbers. I was just reading on NWhikers someone lamenting the Yellowstone bears closures and that area is world class destination hiking. And you're wrong about the closure dates. Follow this link and read the dates. Many of the larger areas are summer closures with do not leave the trail instructions when open....so much for climbing.

nps.gov/yell/learn/manageme…

What's worse is here is a pic of Washington state to scale over Yellowstone National Park.
Washington State to scale over Yellowstone NP
Try and imagine all of the Washington cities on the above map; it becomes clear that dropping this many apex predators that close to major population centers is unprecedented and an experiment of it's own. I did Washington state over Yellowstone NP but the Cascade Grizzly recovery zone is about the same size as the GYE.

Now here is a shot of the bear closures in Yellowstone.
If they close half as much in the Cascades they'll close a substantial portion of our public lands.

Yellowstone Bear closures

Interactions between apex predators (Brown Bears and Wolves) can either relax or strengthen their effect on prey and predator populations, she says.

"The team's results suggest that ignoring such interactions may underestimate the effect competition between predators can have on predator populations," Tallian says. "In addition, it's possible to overestimate the impact of multiple predators on prey populations."

ScienceDaily

Eric Thompson wrote: 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...

Big yawn.

Many of you are so scared of grizzlies that you have guns holstered as you ride your ATVs, as if a bear would ever come close to all that noise. But I guess it makes your dick look bigger, at least to you.

Your military service, while laudable, is irrelevant to this issue; don't use it as a prop.

And I don't really care if access gets restricted because a beautiful animal once hunted almost to extinction by hunters like you has dared to reclaim its former grounds; there are plenty of other places to climb.

RMS wrote: Big yawn. Many of you are so scared of grizzlies that you have guns holstered as you ride your ATVs, as if a bear would ever come close to all that noise. But I guess it makes your dick look bigger, at least to you. Your military service, while laudable, is irrelevant to this issue; don't use it as a prop. And I don't really care if access gets restricted because a beautiful animal once hunted almost to extinction by hunters like you has dared to reclaim its former grounds; there are plenty of other places to climb.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fetEkYRXkP4

Here's Davy "RMS" Crockett fishing....

Eric Thompson wrote: What's worse is here is a pic of Washington state to scale over Yellowstone National Park. Try and imagine all of the Washington cities on the above map;

Eric,

First off, I'm sorry that this has kind of turned into a flame war against you. Such is the way of MP nowadays. However, I want you to really study that map that you posted, and compare the relative size of YNP against the land area of the Cascade Range. Pretty similar, yeah? The argument that you are exposing Seattle etc. to 400 grizzlies (fewer by roughly 350 than the estimated pop. within GYE boundaries) who would much rather stay in their high alpine/ wilderness environment with minimal environmental stessors due to repeated interaction with humans is pretty irrelevant. There are somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000,000 people in the GYE (citation needed, this number is my own very remote guesstimation based on cursory research). This includes population centers such as Jackson, Bozeman, Billings, Idaho Falls, Cody, etc.

I would argue that the huge amount of human encroachment and development on the Cascades ecosystem compared with the GYE would help limit the spread of territory of any introduced species.

Personal attacks (posting a youtube video in a derogatory context of someone that doesn't agree with you) does absolutely nothing except undermine any credibility you have claimed to have concerning this argument. I get that the comment that spurred your response was personal, but please recognize that, and by all means let's keep this dialogue going.

Cheers,

Ben

B-Mkll wrote: Eric, First off, I'm sorry that this has kind of turned into a flame war against you. Such is the way of MP nowadays. However, I want you to really study that map that you posted, and compare the relative size of YNP against the land area of the Cascade Range. Pretty similar, yeah? The argument that you are exposing Seattle etc. to 400 grizzlies (fewer by roughly 350 than the estimated pop. within GYE boundaries) who would much rather stay in their high alpine/ wilderness environment with minimal environmental stessors due to repeated interaction with humans is pretty irrelevant. There are somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000,000 people in the GYE (citation needed, this number is my own very remote guesstimation based on cursory research). This includes population centers such as Jackson, Bozeman, Billings, Idaho Falls, Cody, etc. I would argue that the huge amount of human encroachment and development on the Cascades ecosystem compared with the GYE would help limit the spread of territory of any introduced species. Personal attacks (posting a youtube video in a derogatory context of someone that doesn't agree with you) does absolutely nothing except undermine any credibility you have claimed to have concerning this argument. I get that the comment that spurred your response was personal, but please recognize that, and by all means let's keep this dialogue going. Cheers, Ben

Jackson(9,838) , Bozeman(43,405), Billings(110,263), Idaho Falls(56,813), Cody (9,820), West Yellowstone(1,272) Driggs (1,627).

Total 233,000

Population of Puget Sound basin 4,269,349.

That's without me even bothering with all of the other outlying towns in or close to the Cascade recovery area. So we have a discrepancy of about 4 million more people with more roads and highways connecting them to the Cascade Recovery Zone. That's why I made the comment about this release of bears this close to a major population center is unprecedented.

B-MKII, respectfully, have you ever been to Washington State?

RMS, "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. "

Go look at the comparison maps I made and see for yourself how much access could be restricted if the GYE is any indicator; the impact on all forms of Cascade access and recreation will be staggering.

Eric Thompson wrote: Go look at the comparison maps I made and see for yourself how much access could be restricted if the GYE is any indicator; the impact on all forms of Cascade access and recreation will be staggering.

But your comparisons are not valid. Please reread my post of a few days ago regarding the management of bears in National Parks. The EIS states "Given that only two trails were temporarily closed on nationa 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 recovery area contains over three times the number of bears (estimated at 765 bears) targeted as the restoration goal (200) of the North Cascades Ecosystem.

Skibo wrote: But your comparisons are not valid. Please reread my post of a few days ago regarding the management of bears in National Parks. The EIS states "Given that only two trails were temporarily closed on nationa 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 recovery area contains over three times the number of bears (estimated at 765 bears) targeted as the restoration goal (200) of the North Cascades Ecosystem.

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

That is a perfectly valid comparison, the only thing that makes it a lopsided comparison is the fact that there are millions more people living by the cascade recovery zone.

"The NCDE recovery area contains over three times the number of bears" and the cascade recovery zone is proximate to three times the people.

There's no arguing that we have more people near the cascade recovery zone and that may, in and of itself, cause more restrictions and closures. We don't know. The EIS is very vague on where the reintroduction will start in a very large area.

Is there much of an issue with chronic wasting disease amongst the deer and elk herds in the Cascades? Is there a wolf population there at all?

The problem with re-introduction programs is that the native habitat of big mammals such as grizzlies and wolves is completely different from what it historically was. These programs do very little to restore a habitat to the way it once was, but rather create conflicts between man and beast, or between beast and other species. Read Playing God In Yellowstone and you'll understand how much the NPS has blown it manipulating wildlife populations, in an attempt to restore them to historical numbers. And that's in a place that is essentially an amusement park, where the government has much more control of development and human traffic.

We saw a wolf a few years ago while hiking to an ice climb in the South Fork valley outside of Cody (or at least what we thought from a distance was a wolf) and it was a very cool experience. I love that sense of wildness one gets from seeing a large predator roaming a place where the species was once abundant. On the other hand, the locals there claim that the re-introduced wolves are now decimating the native elk population.

I can't imagine that re-introducing grizzlies close to an area as crowded as western Washington is could be a good idea.

Brad White wrote:On the other hand, the locals there claim that the re-introduced wolves are now decimating the native elk population.

A fraction of the locals, largely elk hunters, are of this sentiment. The majority of the scientific community recognize that the Greater Yellowstone elk herds almost certainly expanded to un-natural and un-healthy numbers in the 60 or so years that apex predators were eliminated from the system. Elk numbers have largely stabilized in recent years due to the ecosystem's return to a more natural balance. When the wolves were eradicated from the system riparian habitat severely suffered due to the overabundance of elk and other herbivores on which wolves prey.

A historical look at The North Cascades

8,000 BC to the 1,700s: Paleoindians lived alongside the Grizzly Bears in the lowlands of the North Cascades.

Late 1700s: White explorers first entered the North Cascades and surrounding areas with intentions of fur trapping and trading with the natives.

1811: Alexander Ross and the Pacific Fur Company established Fort Okanogan, the first American settlement in present day Washington. (In one season alone, Ross traded 1,500 beaver pelts.)

1814: Alexander Ross became the first known white man to cross the North Cascades Mountains. He was looking for a route to connect the trading forts of the puget sound and inland WA.

1825: A Total of 3,800 grizzly bear hides were shipped out of the surrounding area forts.

1841: A.C. Anderson, drove a heard of cattle across the Cascades, Over what is now Snoqualmie Pass

1849: Following the gold rush, White settlers started to arrive in the North Cascades looking for gold as well as fur-bearing animals. The settlers cleared routes through some of the most rugged terrain.

1850: Washington's recorded population was 1,201

1853: U.S. Army Captain George B. McClellan led a party that explored for a potential railroad route through the Cascades. Some of his men traveled west down Snoqualmie Pass.

1860: Washington's recorded population was 11,594

1867: A toll road was built over Snoqualmie Pass.

1870: Washington's recorded population was 23,955

1880: WA. population 75,116

1890: WA. pop. 357,232

1900: Completion of the Great Northern Railway along what is now Stevens Pass.
Population 518,103

1920: WA. pop. 1,356,621

1936: Gorge Dam and Diablo Dam had been completed and were attracting visitors and families to the area.

1940: The first stage of the completion of Ross Dam was reached. Creating another influx of population in the Skagit River Valley.
Population 1,736,191

1959: Construction of the North Cascade Highway cuts thru the heart of the wilderness.

1960: 2,853,214

1967: The last legally hunted grizzly bear was shot in what is now the North Cascades National Park Complex.

1968: Signing of the North Cascades National Park Bill by Lyndon B Johnson.

1972: Official opening of the North Cascades Highway to motorists.

1980: 4,132,156

1991: A team of U.S. and Canadian biologists submits a report affirming the suitability of the North Cascades to support a viable population of grizzly bears. (this study was conducted during the 1980's).

Today population 7,062,000

We might be past the opportunity to act as time machine and "fix" this problem.

I used various sources including Wikipedia, State Parks page, conservation group pages, and national park page. Please add or correct any information that is relevant to this discussion.
I wanted to provide a little framework for the discussion without adding to much of my personal opinion. But honestly... What part of that time line would the bears get us back to? The idea of restoration and reintroduction is warm and fuzzy, but we can never go back. The world is not the same.
Habitat should be viewed as TIME and LOCATION. Sure the North Cascades once sustained Grizzly Bears, but can they still?

Bryan Gartland wrote: A fraction of the locals, largely elk hunters, are of this sentiment. The majority of the scientific community recognize that the Greater Yellowstone elk herds almost certainly expanded to un-natural and un-healthy numbers in the 60 or so years that apex predators were eliminated from the system. Elk numbers have largely stabilized in recent years due to the ecosystem's return to a more natural balance. When the wolves were eradicated from the system riparian habitat severely suffered due to the overabundance of elk and other herbivores on which wolves prey.

It seems like the health of the ecosystem is a much more convincing reason for a reintroduction program than "grizzlies are awesome" (although they are).

Is there good data to say that the wolves are doing some good? If so, why not just build up the wolf population in the Cascades? If they serve a similar ecological purpose, probably breed faster, and are a whole lot less dangerous...