400 Grizzlies in the Cascades

Pete Spri wrote:

I see your point, the question is if any lawsuit will stand.  I mean, there is a highway going through the national park, after all?  

If you check the map closely you'll see that the Park and the Hwy 20 don't touch.  The Hwy 20 is in the Ross Lake National Recreation Area.  

https://www.nps.gov/noca/planyourvisit/maps.htm

I spose they could drop the bears off on the Hwy.

I'm 100% aware that black bears are far different than browns and grizzlies, which is why I said that in my first sentence. I've interacted with many black bears for years and have watched Grizzlies from a distance on a number of occasions... I'm pretty familiar with most bears and their mannerisms. Because they are obviously different, doesn't change the argument. You guys just sound irrationally scared to have to share nature with predators. I'm all for getting any kind of animals numbers back up like they should be before people began destroying their habitats. Here is a little snippet for you as well....

" in the 2000s, there have been 27 fatal incidences so far in North America, resulting in 29 deaths. 15 were in Canada, three were in Alaska, two were in Tennessee, and single fatal attacks happened in New York, New Mexico, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Utah and Montana. 17 of those attacks were perpetrated by black bears, and 10 by grizzlies. What can we learn from this, other than don't go to Canada (kidding!)? In truth, you don't have much to fear: That averages to just under 3 fatalities a year, when millions of people go into the backcountry or live near bear habitat. 26 people get killed by dogs every year, and 90 people are killed every year by lightning."

Like I said, your fear is largely irrational. The animals and the nature that we play in are much larger and have been around a lot longer, than us.

If you're that worried about getting mauled to death by bears, I'm sure there are plenty of climbing gyms nearby.

Pete Spri wrote:

Grizzlies are not brown or black bears.  They are an order of magnitude different.

Actually, grizzlies are a kind of brown bear (as are Kodiaks and Kamchatchka grizzlies). Brown bears are *emphatically* not black bears however, and human/bear interactions are wildly different between the two species.

Jordan Whitley wrote:

 Here is a little snippet for you as well....

" in the 2000s, there have been 27 fatal incidences so far in North America, resulting in 29 deaths. 15 were in Canada, three were in Alaska, two were in Tennessee, and single fatal attacks happened in New York, New Mexico, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Utah and Montana. 17 of those attacks were perpetrated by black bears, and 10 by grizzlies. What can we learn from this, other than don't go to Canada (kidding!)? In truth, you don't have much to fear: That averages to just under 3 fatalities a year, when millions of people go into the backcountry or live near bear habitat. 26 people get killed by dogs every year, and 90 people are killed every year by lightning."

Like I said, your fear is largely irrational. The animals and the nature that we play in are much larger and have been around a lot longer, than us.

If you're that worried about getting mauled to death by bears, I'm sure there are plenty of climbing gyms nearby.

Jordan, 

Here's a little snippet for you....before you wonder in to a discussion ill-informed and start offering your advice you may want to read said conversation and bring yourself up too speed.

Jordan wondered in here like 

First off, people went over the statistic thing page one and two and what you've failed to equate is exposure.  What are my odds of sinking on a ship if "I" never go on a ship? Are my odds as an summer alpine climber getting struck by lightning the same as someone who bowls for sport?

Secondly, do you think you're the only climber that climbs in bear country?  Ben from Montana offered his bear advice but at least he lives and plays in grizzly country. 

So since you don't have time to read the discussion allow me to frame it in North Carolina terms so you can empathize with our plight.

They're trying to put bears back in the natural historic range, that didn't include NC when whites came but we have found grizzly fossils as far east as Kentucky so it's plausible you once had grizzlies or Ursus horribilis in your area.  So say some guy wanted to put them back and put out a map of the North Carolina Grizzly Recover Area.

Above is North Carolina to scale over Yellowstone let's call it the North Carolina Bear Recovery Zone.

Then they wanted to close this much of it.

http://www.wilderness.net/map.cfm  Now follow the link to the left and you'll find that they close more land for bears in Yellowstone than all of North Carolina's Wilderness Areas.

Then they say there may be a few helicopter flights so the parts you can still go to won't be so peaceful anymore.  How many flights?

"The action alternatives would involve about 50 to 400 helicopter landings and twice that many flights, though the DEIS is somewhat inconsistent on the exact numbers. All, or almost all, landings would apparently be in Wilderness, either in North Carolina Bear Recovery Area or in surrounding national forests. The extensive use of helicopters would continue indefinitely for monitoring bear movement and numbers. This heavy-handed management would be detrimental to Wilderness and bears alike. Bears would be collared, drugged, samples taken, released in Wilderness, re-collared and re-sampled, if determined necessary, for many years. Any young born in the Wildernesses may also be subjected to this invasive kind of management."  Wilderness Watch

So, how does the above plan sound Jordan?  At what price to our Wilderness experience?  These guys want to show up and basically bring the circus to our church.

And to let you know that I'm not just all of the sudden offended at helicopters in the wilderness, below is a paragraph that I published in 2013 about a single helicopter coming over in 15 days...

"The next morning the weather finally broke and Dome and Sinister were just to the north peeking out from dissipating clouds. I was thoroughly enjoying my federally protected wilderness experience when some “No Talent Ass Clown” showed up flying the route I had declared to the NCNP in a turbine powered rotary wing aircraft thousands of feet below the summits. It’s a violation of Federal Law to fly an aircraft that low in a wilderness area without a declared emergency. I was fucking pissed off. What was he going to do, see what my comfort level was? Drop me a Duraflame log, a dry sleeping bag and some Animal Cookies? Not that I would have refused the cookies. I’ll tell you what those worry warts in Holden don’t know, what those NTACS at the NCNP can’t tell you; “Mamma can’t cut the crust off the world for you.” If you come to these Cascade Mountains it actually might rain, it could be uncomphy, and one may just have to Cowboy up. I know I’m so preaching to the choir on this. That day ended at a high camp on the SE corner of Sinister with a cool carin. "

I've read the thread front to back. You've been talking in nothing but hypotheticals and what-ifs the entire thread, you didn't even know how many bears they were trying to re-populate with until someone told you. 

You seem border-line obsessive/paranoid about the issue honestly... You keep framing it as "your plight", and "our church"... The bears were there long before you, climbers don't own the forest.... But according to you, as long as we have bears in Canada and Alaska, they shouldn't go extinct.

If brown bears once lived in our range here in NC, and they wanted to try to get the populations back up, after we have destroyed their habitats, etc. I would be completely fine with that if they could make it work. Using some come sense bear practices and knowing what to do when you do encounter a bear, are worth the price of re-building the ecosystems that are being destroyed everyday. 

You seem more scared than anything to be honest.

Jordan Whitley wrote:

I've read the thread front to back. You've been talking in nothing but hypotheticals and what-ifs the entire thread, you didn't even know how many bears they were trying to re-populate with until someone told you. 

You seem border-line obsessive/paranoid about the issue honestly... You keep framing it as "your plight", and "our church"... The bears were there long before you, climbers don't own the forest.... But according to you, as long as we have bears in Canada and Alaska, they shouldn't go extinct.

If brown bears once lived in our range here in NC, and they wanted to try to get the populations back up, after we have destroyed their habitats, etc. I would be completely fine with that if they could make it work. Using some come sense bear practices and knowing what to do when you do encounter a bear, are worth the price of re-building the ecosystems that are being destroyed everyday. 

You seem more scared than anything to be honest.

Exactly, what do you care about our Wilderness experience? Nothing. Go beat your chest somewhere else.

Eric Thompson wrote:

Exactly, what do you care about our Wilderness experience? Nothing. Go beat your chest somewhere else.

I care very much about everyone's Wilderness Experience in the US. I'll be in the Cascades and MRNP for the whole month of July this year. If you call being a Conservationist, "beating your chest", then so be it. You're being a fear-monger on the issue with no facts, except whats happened with populations that never left in Yellowstone, hypotheticals. Pretty much everyone on this thread is in favor of re-introduction except for a few, so I guess we know where Public Opinion is going to land on the issue. If you're that worried about climbing around bears, invest in a .357mag and throw it in your pack or on your waist. When I climb/hike where I KNOW there are a lot of bears, especially in the Spring, we carry one, thankfully have never had to use it, but being mindful and utilizing proper bear safety techniques, the chances of you having a negative run in with a bear, is extremely, extremely low. I would argue that whatever you're currently climbing poses a far greater risk to yourself than any bear does. 

That's a part of playing in the wild. It's wild!

The use of motorized vehicles, etc. (e.g. helicopters, chainsaws) technically is not illegal in Wilderness areas if used by the land managing agency in the performance of its duties.  All actions by the agencies that are proposed within Wilderness boundaries have to undergo an evaluation to determine whether the action is appropriate in Wilderness areas, and a detailed accounting of the action's impacts to wilderness character.  This process is called a "minimum requirements analysis".  The EIS includes the minimum requirements analysis towards the end of the document in Appendix F.  It is important to realize that the analysis doesn't come up with a yes/no answer in allowing the actions to proceed in Wilderness. Once the analysis is completed, then it is the land manager's (e.g. Superintendent's) decision whether to proceed or not.  The analysis is somewhat subjective for each item, and there is usually a lot of discussion on how each item is rated during the process.  If you don't agree with the ratings, then it is certainly appropriate to bring that to the decision maker's attention.

The introduction of grizzlies, and the efforts to understand the introduction itself (e.g. radiocollaring, etc.) is supported by the Wilderness Act, which states: "so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness".  Again, any proposed action has to undergo the minimum requirements analysis and a decision whether to perform the action must be at least partially based on this analysis.  .  

Skibo wrote:

The use of motorized vehicles, etc. (e.g. helicopters, chainsaws) technically is not illegal in Wilderness areas if used by the land managing agency in the performance of its duties.  All actions by the agencies that are proposed within Wilderness boundaries have to undergo an evaluation to determine whether the action is appropriate in Wilderness areas, and a detailed accounting of the action's impacts to wilderness character.  This process is called a "minimum requirements analysis".  The EIS includes the minimum requirements analysis towards the end of the document in Appendix F.  It is important to realize that the analysis doesn't come up with a yes/no answer in allowing the actions to proceed in Wilderness. Once the analysis is completed, then it is the land manager's (e.g. Superintendent's) decision whether to proceed or not.  The analysis is somewhat subjective for each item, and there is usually a lot of discussion on how each item is rated during the process.  If you don't agree with the ratings, then it is certainly appropriate to bring that to the decision maker's attention.

The introduction of grizzlies, and the efforts to understand the introduction itself (e.g. radiocollaring, etc.) is supported by the Wilderness Act, which states: "so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness".  Again, any proposed action has to undergo the minimum requirements analysis and a decision whether to perform the action must be at least partially based on this analysis.  .  

That's your interpretation in your second paragraph.  It seems they will need approval from Congress.  But more than that, having that many flights over that much wilderness for that duration isn't just an exception to the 1964 Wilderness act, it's a complete departure.  

This Article considers when activities that are inconsistent with wilderness are nonetheless allowed in it. That result happens in four different ways: 

(1) Congress decided not to designate an area as “wilderness” even though the area possesses wilderness characteristics; 

(2) Congress draws the boundaries of a wilderness area to exclude land that possesses wilderness characteristics because Congress wants to allow activities there that would be forbidden by the Act; 

(3) Congress specifically authorizes otherwise prohibited activities when it establishes a new wilderness area; or 

(4) Congress acts to approve contested activities in response to a controversy that arises after a wilderness area has already been established. The careful decisions regarding those areas that should be entitled to the law’s protections, and the circumstances in which those protections may give way to other values, demonstrate the ability to identify and prioritize wilderness values in a way that was never possible before.

Jordan wrote:

I care very much about everyone's Wilderness Experience in the US. I'll be in the Cascades and MRNP for the whole month of July this year. If you call being a Conservationist, "beating your chest", then so be it. You're being a fear-monger on the issue with no facts, except whats happened with populations that never left in Yellowstone, hypotheticals. Pretty much everyone on this thread is in favor of re-introduction except for a few, so I guess we know where Public Opinion is going to land on the issue. If you're that worried about climbing around bears, invest in a .357mag and throw it in your pack or on your waist. When I climb/hike where I KNOW there are a lot of bears, especially in the Spring, we carry one, thankfully have never had to use it, but being mindful and utilizing proper bear safety techniques, the chances of you having a negative run in with a bear, is extremely, extremely low. I would argue that whatever you're currently climbing poses a far greater risk to yourself than any bear does. 

That's a part of playing in the wild. It's wild!

Hell Yeah, come'on out, let me know if you need any beta. 

 I already own a .357, i don't want to carry it Alpine climbing, it would completely mess up my go lite ethic.  Furthermore I don't want to shoot a bear.  That would be a lame experience. But we have been joking around that Cascade summit photos could get a lot more gangsta!!! ha

I know me wondering what will be closed is hypothetical. However, whats closed in yellowstone, wilderness watch's opinion on the flights, wilderness law and the population here aren't hypothetical.  It would stand to reason that something will have to be closed to separate the new bears and the largest population they've ever lived this close to.  I just don't want to having this discussion on the other side when something is closed.  I just want the facts in advance and thats not too much to ask. 

Eric Thompson wrote:

Hell Yeah, come'on out, let me know if you need any beta. 

 I already own a .357, i don't want to carry it Alpine climbing, it would completely mess up my go lite ethic.  Furthermore I don't want to shoot a bear.  That would be a lame experience. But we have been joking around that Cascade summit photos could get a lot more gangsta!!! ha

I know me wondering what will be closed is hypothetical. However, whats closed in yellowstone, wilderness watch's opinion on the flights, wilderness law and the population here aren't hypothetical.  It would stand to reason that something will have to be closed to separate the new bears and the largest population they've ever lived this close to.  I just don't want to having this discussion on the other side when something is closed.  I just want the facts in advance and thats not too much to ask. 

Yeah I don't like carrying mine either... I've only carried it a few times backcountry hiking and such when there's been a lot of sightings and it's early in the season and they're hungry and have cubs with them. That's really the only time you gotta worry about black bears over here. Most of the time being loud and noisy will make them take off. I'd hate to have to shoot a bear as well. I would have to be almost in the process of being eaten to shoot one haha. I had one run at us one time probably 10 years ago and was just being a dick and wouldn't go away, shot once in the air and he was gone real fast. Bear canisters are a must around this time of year over here, we have pretty high populations over here so I guess we've kind of learned to live with them.

I agree getting all of the info first is really important. Hopefully it would be a gradual, slow process that can be monitored before introducing large amounts of animals in a new area. I think it would be beneficial for everyone to have a sustainable bear population. I hate seeing animals run out because of us, there's room for everyone I think. Education is just extremely important as well. I was/am a surfer before I started climbing so I guess it's kind of similar to sharks at the beach, they're out there and it's a risk we take, but not many people stay out of the water because of it. We love the ocean and surfing (just like we love climbing and nature); so it's a risk we take. I think the risk is worth it though!

Eric Thompson wrote:

That's your interpretation in your second paragraph.  It seems they will need approval from Congress.  But more than that, having that many flights over that much wilderness for that duration isn't just an exception to the 1964 Wilderness act, it's a complete departure.  

You sure are a contrarian (and wrong). The Wilderness Act states  "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, SCIENTIFIC, educational, CONSERVATION, and historical use.", Section 4b. It is not my (presumably false) interpretation, it is the interpretation of the National Park Service, as outlined in  "Scientific Activities and Research in NPS Wilderness:Guidelines for Wilderness Managers" (http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/NPS/Scientific%20Activities%20and%20Research%20in%20NPS%20Wilderness.pdf) listed on the wilderness.net website you reference. I have participated in wildlife research, conservation, and management activities in designated and proposed Wilderness areas in national parks throughout my 25 years as a NPS wildlife biologist.  I have proposed, participated and led projects, and reviewed, as part of the required environmental review process (as directed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), the wilderness impacts of other projects.  All of this was done via minimum requirements analysis, and I never met a Congressman.  Do you think Congress is involved with every honey bucket helicopter flight in Mount Rainier NP?  Helicopters are tools used in the management of Wilderness--all agencies use them, however their use undergoes review, and not by Congress.  Their use must, in some way, benefit the management of Wilderness, and helicopters must be the "minimum tool" for achieving project goals.  

I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong, though, based on your extensive experience on the actual evaluation of projects proposed in Wilderness. Like it or not, what I've stated is what is done (at least in the NPS).  And by the way, I've never presented my personal view on whether grizzlies should be reintroduced (so I guess you can't belittle me on that).  I take issue in your misguided and repeatedly erroneous analysis of the issue. 

Skibo wrote:

You sure are a contrarian (and wrong). The Wilderness Act states  "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, SCIENTIFIC, educational, CONSERVATION, and historical use.", Section 4b. It is not my (presumably false) interpretation, it is the interpretation of the National Park Service, as outlined in  "Scientific Activities and Research in NPS Wilderness:Guidelines for Wilderness Managers" (http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/NPS/Scientific%20Activities%20and%20Research%20in%20NPS%20Wilderness.pdf) listed on the wilderness.net website you reference. I have participated in wildlife research, conservation, and management activities in designated and proposed Wilderness areas in national parks throughout my 25 years as a NPS wildlife biologist.  I have proposed, participated and led projects, and reviewed, as part of the required environmental review process (as directed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), the wilderness impacts of other projects.  All of this was done via minimum requirements analysis, and I never met a Congressman.  Do you think Congress is involved with every honey bucket helicopter flight in Mount Rainier NP?  Helicopters are tools used in the management of Wilderness--all agencies use them, however their use undergoes review, and not by Congress.  Their use must, in some way, benefit the management of Wilderness, and helicopters must be the "minimum tool" for achieving project goals.  

I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong, though, based on your extensive experience on the actual evaluation of projects proposed in Wilderness. Like it or not, what I've stated is what is done (at least in the NPS).  And by the way, I've never presented my personal view on whether grizzlies should be reintroduced (so I guess you can't belittle me on that).  I take issue in your misguided and repeatedly erroneous analysis of the issue. 

It's interesting that page one of the document in the link above says this...

"The NPS Climate Change Response Strategy [CCRS] (NPS 2010) clearly indicates that science is one of the key components to be considered in climate change-related park management.Along with adaptation, mitigation, and communication, science is seen as a key element in the effort to understand and potentially reduce the impacts of climate change in the future. In particular, theCCRS indicates that one of the goals of parks should be to “acquire, provide, and apply scientific information” (pg 14) and use “the best available science” (pg 15) to make decisions on park management, park planning, and carbon footprint reduction." 

Reducing carbon footprint?  Let's start with 800 helicopter sorties, great idea.  Honey buckets and fire tower lumber deliveries aside this is totaly different.  It's going to end up in federal court, i'll bet you a mountain house oatmeal on it Skibo. 

Petsfed wrote:

Actually, grizzlies are a kind of brown bear (as are Kodiaks and Kamchatchka grizzlies). Brown bears are *emphatically* not black bears however, and human/bear interactions are wildly different between the two species.

This was in response to the poster comparing Grizzlies to Brown and Black bears, ie using common names to discuss them.  I think it stands alone that Grizzlies (and Polar bears) are really in a class of their own as far as predation goes.  

Jordan wrote:

I've read the thread front to back. You've been talking in nothing but hypotheticals and what-ifs the entire thread, you didn't even know how many bears they were trying to re-populate with until someone told you. 

...

You seem more scared than anything to be honest.

I think you misunderstand.  The primary fear is not of the grizzlies themselves.  Most of us work and play in areas with exposure and have had interactions with bears at some point.  The biggest concern is that this is just going to be a way to shut off land, as they have already done in other parks.

Yes, the other hypothetical is that a 1% risk, compounded over time along with increase of bears is going to add up.  And this probability is also likely to be driven up when coupled to being very close to a very large metropolis area.  Let me scale that in your terms.  That would be like plopping 400 grizzlies from Ashville west in North Carolina.  You are going to have a lot more interactions with those bears because of the nature of the bear and how close it is located to some major population.  I think it is fair to bring this up as a hypothetical concern, because right now there are no areas in Wyoming or Montana or Canada that even come close to population that rivals the seattle/I-5 corridor, so while it may strike you as fear, I dont think you can just label it as fear-mongering without actually weighing the actuality of it.  I dont want them to say "well, we've had to many bear encounters, close calls, maulings,deaths, now we just need to restrict this from human use.  They need to tell the public what there plans are if these hypotheticals happen.  This is not an unreasonable expectation.  

If the goal is 400, they need to set the goal at about half that.  Once the stated goal is reached and science based management decisions have to be made, plenty of groups will sue to stop any science based management plans in favor of emotional appeals.

Pete Spri wrote:

This was in response to the poster comparing Grizzlies to Brown and Black bears, ie using common names to discuss them.  I think it stands alone that Grizzlies (and Polar bears) are really in a class of their own as far as predation goes.  

I was making the point that grizzlies *are* brown bears. Brown bears are ursus arctos, grizzlies are the subspecies ursus arctos horribilis. So somebody arguing that you can't compare grizzlies to black or brown bears is saying "you can't compare grizzlies to grizzlies or black bears".

Whatever the real point was, that statement severely undercuts the reliability of any further statements you make.

Skibo wrote:

I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong, though, based on your extensive experience on the actual evaluation of projects proposed in Wilderness. Like it or not, what I've stated is what is done (at least in the NPS).  And by the way, I've never presented my personal view on whether grizzlies should be reintroduced (so I guess you can't belittle me on that).  I take issue in your misguided and repeatedly erroneous analysis of the issue. 

Okay Skibo, i'll bite. What's your personal view on wether grizzlies should be reintroduced to the cascades please?  

And after thinking about your words on the helicopters in Wilderness Area, you're right.  I do see them picking up honey buckets in the Enchantments and Mt. Rainier but those are two Wilderness Areas that have suffered some growing pains with too many people.  The enchantments is over run with people and the permits are sold out.  My point being it's not fair to cherry pick the most crowded Wilderness Areas and the practices they have been pushed into using and then justify those same practices to Wilderness Areas that are remote and uncrowded.  In a way that's a slippery slope argument and where do we stop? 

Petsfed wrote:

I was making the point that grizzlies *are* brown bears. Brown bears are ursus arctos, grizzlies are the subspecies ursus arctos horribilis. So somebody arguing that you can't compare grizzlies to black or brown bears is saying "you can't compare grizzlies to grizzlies or black bears".

Whatever the real point was, that statement severely undercuts the reliability of any further statements you make.

What you are doing is trying to change context of common bear names, say that really I should have used scientific names even the the poster I was responding to used common names, and all of this so you discredit m from anything I say?  Very clever, but not valid argument neither to context or the actual issue at hand.

Pete Spri wrote:

What you are doing is trying to change context of common bear names, say that really I should have used scientific names even the the poster I was responding to used common names, and all of this so you discredit m from anything I say?  Very clever, but not valid argument neither to context or the actual issue at hand.

I take it you have strong opinions on soda vs. pop vs. coke.

I am telling you that "brown bear" *is* the common name of the species that describes grizzlies (and Russian brown bears and European brown bears and...).

Will you also tell us that cougars and mountain lions are different? What about hoagies and grinders?