Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
400 Grizzlies in the Cascades
|
Semi related, this was a very enjoyable watch https://youtu.be/9gXa-bs_9i0?si=Z09O8cK96Gc38JE2 |
 |
Darin Berdinka wrote: Hi Darin, Despite my previous comment (Go Bears!) I understand that this is a complex issue. I don't know much about the specifics, but I am curious about your quote above. Just some quick history. I'm definitely not a local, but I do have at least some conection to the area. Some twenty years ago, my outdoor/climbing life started in the Noreth Casdades. I'm a science teacher, and I won a grant to go on an Outward Bound canoe trip for teachers on Ross Lake. It was an amazing experience. When I saw those mountains, I feel in love. I returned with an Earthwatch Expedition fellowship to monitor glaciers, a trip that included some real mountaineering in remote areas near the canadian border. Finally, I took an American Alpine Institute mountaieering course in the Cascades, and later climbed Baker with some friends. I also climbed on the east side near Mazama. Great part of the world. So, just for the sake of agument, let's say that we agree that re-introducing bears and wolves in natural areas is the right thing to do. It furthers a retun to a more genuine wilderness, it adds balance to ecosystems, and it seems morally correct. Now, these ideas are themselves controversial, and I'm happy to discusss them, but just for a moment, let's just say that we agree on this. With that as a starting point, why not the North Cascades? What better or alternative regions do people propose? If backpackers and climbers need to carry bear spray, and modify their travel and camping practices, I don't see the problem. I also highly doubt that the bears will impact the mountain goat population, at least not through predation, although if recreation/visitation drops the goats could benefit. In terms of conflicts with ranchers, I am unsympathetic. To begin with, ranching, the meat industry, etc. is an incredibly environmentally destructive practice, and should be limited anyway. Furthemore, ranching and bears can coexist, with fences, dogs, behavior changes, and so on. In terms of coming into contact with settled areas, we're not talking about bears in downtown Seattle, right? These bears will be in a pretty remote part of the Cascades (I could be totally wrong about this, please let me know if I'm missinterpreting the release area). Last, if bears are introdued and they thrive, I also recognize that we will have to control their population. 400 bears might be practical, but 4,000 obviously will not be. I spent five summers working in the Winds and hanging out in the GYE, so I'm familiar with the situation regarding wolves and the pressures on different sides. This has some similarities. What am I missing? |
Darin Berdinka wrote: If grizzly bears actually reduce recreation, I don’t want to know what the Tetons and Winds would be like without them… |
|
I predict an uptick in crag dog acceptance coming soon to the PNW |
Bruno Schull wrote: (facepalm) |
Yoda Jedi Knight wrote: First of all, Yoda would never facepalm. It would be beneath him. Second, Yoda would absolutely support the re-introduction of bears. With that out of the way, for me, the choice is easy. If you introduce bears, you have the chance to help a species survive, and return wild spaces to a more natural state. The only drawbacks are that hikers, climbers, and other visitors have to take reasonable pecautions, as they do in many other areas, and that ranchers and farmers might have to invest money to protect livestock, or even curtail their land use, which, of course, is an incredibly destructive practice anyway, so that would actually be a good thing for the environment. I suspect that another objections is resistance to perceived federal overeach, or the idea that environmentalists in distant regions make decision that effect locals. However, far as I know, the North Cascades National Park belongs to all US citizens, not just a few climbers and skiers who don't want their favorite roads closed. Honestly, apart from memes and politics, what's the principal objection to this plan? |
Bruno Schull wrote: You are acknowledging most of it so I'm not sure what you're asking. Personally, my main objection is how irresponsible it is to conduct an experiment like this. We can make predictions, but we don't really know how the ecosystem (humans included) will react. Natural state? What does that even mean? There's no state. Things are ever changing. If we want to do things "naturally", we should allow them to migrate on their own terms. Maybe there's another solution. |
|
That its dumb, does very little to increase actual grizzly bear habitat, will inevitably result in significant closures and ultimately fail when some poor soul gets maimed sooner than later. It's real nice you've visited the Cascades before and done your very important glaciology research and that this reintroduction gives you warn fuzzies wherever your sitting. But for those of us who live in the area and have experienced the NCNPs constant overreach and resistance to reasonable outdoor recreation it stinks. I've never seen any evidence that the north cascades ecosystem is somehow out of wack due to a lack of grizzly bears. But I have read that this reintroduction will increase grizzly bear habit range by 0.1%. That's right 1/1000 of their total current range. Other than confusing the hell out of a few (few hundred?) bears I just don't see how this significantly benefits bear biodiversity or resilience. The Cascades are not Alaska, or the Coast Range or the Beartooths. Its tight and crowded out there. No way this doesn't result in a steady stream of negative interactions (and closures). |
|
*shrugs in montanan* |
Bruno Schull wrote: What are you missing?! A lot Bruno. First take a look at the recent study indicating that the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone didn't do a bunch of great things as they had bragged about all those years. Also they close half of Yellowstone each summer to minimize hiker bear interactions. Do you want to see half the cascades closed from the I-90 to the Canadian border?! They want to spend 25 million on hundreds of helo flights in our wilderness areas where there's no motorized travel. There's a Washington state law that Grizzlies can't be brought to our state and the support for this is soft at best. The wolves haven't accomplished all this rosie goals, the wolves killed the southern most Caribou herd and the mountain goats all got killed but hey 3rd times a charm. What are you missing?! The BC bear reintroduction has been a disaster, bears hit by cars and trains, bears in town. This only sounds good to people who are clueless about the issue or young chest beating types. People in Washington State are shaking our heads as we have many more serious problems to solve than bringing the bears back. Edit: adding the North Cascades eco system doesn't expand the brown bears range by even .5%., they're not endangered in anyway and are hunted in some places. |
Smith Rock wrote: Please dont make unfounded statements on what "the people" of washington want based on your small circle. I am married to a biologist, and one of my weekly climbing partners is also a biologist. Both of them are in favor of the reintroduction along with most other folks in my circle. You seem to be very passionate on this topic which is fine, but dont assume that others agree with you. |
|
"Four Hundred, The Revenge of Cocaine Bear" coming soon to subscriber video feed! |
|
@ Yoda, I agree with two of your points. First, defining what is "natural" is difficult, and second, this is an experiment. In terms of what is natural, yes, of course, in a purely academic sense, ecosystems change all the time, and regular and sometimes abrupt disturbance is the norm. Fires, floods, eruptions, earthquakes and so forth regularlly change the world dramatically, so there is no enduring and stable "natural" state. Also, since humans are just another animal, anything we do is "natural" such as asphalt, glass, steel, cars, pollution, extinction, nuclear energy, and so forth. All that said, I think it's shortsighted to argue that since there's no such thing as "natural" that we should not work to protect nature. Also, I think you know perfectly well what I mean by "natural" in this context. I think that you and I could easily come up with a list of things that we agree on when we say "natural", such as biodiversity at all tropic levels from primary producers to top predators; water, soil, and atmospheric systems to support these ecosystems; few traces of man, and so on. A good place to start might be with the definition of natural areas in the Wilderness Act of 1964. Recall, of course, that over 90% of the North Cascades National park is designated wilderness. Link https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd645666.pdf Excerpt (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works So, considering all that, I think it makes perfect sense to introduce bears to the NCNP; it advances what the term "natural" means in this context, and fulfils the goals of wilderness areas. As to the idea that this is an experiment, as I said, I agree. But that does not mean that it's an experiment without precedent. Grizzly bears have been re-introduced to several areas where they once lived, including alpine areas comparable to the North Cascades, such in the European Alps. So there is experience and data to draw on. Furthermore, if we did not conduct experiments such as these, we would not be able to even try to redress some of the destruction humans have wrought on the world. Should we not try to clean a polluted river, simply because we don't know excactly what the effects will be? Should we not try to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, just because we are not sure what will happen? Of course not. I put this in the same category. We should re-introduce bears to this area, despite the fact that we can not foresee the future, and do not know exactly what the consequences will be, because it serves the broader goal or rehabilitating and conserving wild areas. Last, stepping back, if one generally supports the idea of bear re-introductions, what better place than the North Cascades, one of the wildest places in the lower 48? If bears could live in anywhere relatively undisturbed, it would be in the NCNP. |
Levi X wrote: Did you go to any of the meetings?! Only the biologists are for this and what they've tried so far hasn't worked out that well. |
Smith Rock wrote: I am not a biologist and i am for it. Multiple friends are also not biologists but are avid hikers and climbers who are also for it. Just because something doesnt work the first time doesnt mean you give up. Science takes time, failures, and studying/adjusting to those failures. |
|
@ Darin, You arguments are immature (you don't like the bear re-introduction plan because "it's dumb") and write with an insulting patronizing tone (the re-introduction plan gives me the "warm fuzzues") but I will respond anyway. You said, "For those of us who live in the area and have experienced the NCNPs constant overreach and resistance to reasonable outdoor recreation stinks." How exactly is this an example of federal overeach? As I said above, over 90% of the park is designated wilderness, where human activity is supposed to be restricted. What rights of your are being trambled by the government? How does this limit your recreation? Maybe you won't be able to drive directly to some crag or trailhead where you could previously, but you can always put on a pack and hike wherever you want to go. I think you're just reacting politically ("federal overeach") and you are annoyed that this might make you recreation a bit less convenient. Deal with it. There should be places where nature and bioviversity are prioritized over human concerns. That's the whole point of wilderness. See the wilderness act above. You also wrote, "I've never seen any evidence that the north cascades ecosystem is somehow out of wack due to a lack of grizzly bears. But I have read that this reintroduction will increase grizzly bear habit range by 0.1%. That's right 1/1000 of their total current range. Other than confusing the hell out of a few (few hundred?) bears I just don't see how this significantly benefits bear biodiversity or resilience." You're missing the point. The re-introduction of the bears might lead to large changes in the ecosystem, or it might not. But that doesn't matter, because stabilizing the ecosystem is not the goal, or the only goal, of this project. It also doesn't matter if the re-introduction only increases the habitat of the bears by a small amount, or only effects a limited number of animals. Again, the goal of the project is not to mazimize the habitat, or the number of bears. The goal is to simply bring back bears to this area, so that we can increase its wild character, and preserve and protect places like this on Earth, in whatever limited way that we can. In terms of interactions and closures, if the bears are there, people will learn to respect them. There will likely be negative interactions, especially at the start, but this will be the fault of ignorant or willfully irresponsible humans. |
Levi X wrote: Your arrogance is spectacular. Our government works for us, the people in our state pass laws for us. We're not beholden to a small circle of biologists who think the have the world by the tail because they took bio 301?!?! Pfffg The people holding the meetings looked nervous at the total opposition to this folly. 100 years ago we'd have tared and feathered your biologist friends. |
Smith Rock wrote: Can you elucidate? Your concerns are coming off a bit histrionic and myopic to me. I’m not supposing everything will be cupcakes and sunshine, but I have yet to see an argument or concern against, that is more than “meh” or overblown. I practically use wolves as hunting dogs in Northern Minnesota (see them every time and have been within 10 yds of a pack) and there are plenty of black bears not causing issues. Black bears are statistically more dangerous than grizzlies— even though on an individual encounter level, yes, we’d all almost universally want to randomly surprise a black bear over a grizz. But I’ve done both and had wild encounters with Grizz (within 100 yds) in Tetons/Yellowstone and Alaska with no issue. |
|
@ Smith Rock, Thanks for your post. I appreciate that you focused on issues. Your words in italics. My responses below. "First take a look at the recent study indicating that the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone didn't do a bunch of great things as they had bragged about all those years. Also they close half of Yellowstone each summer to minimize hiker bear interactions. Do you want to see half the cascades closed from the I-90 to the Canadian border?! " And "The wolves haven't accomplished all this rosie goals, the wolves killed the southern most Caribou herd and the mountain goats all got killed." There's much about the wolf situation in Yellowstone that I don't necessarily agree with. I think there probably need to be fewer animals, for one thing. As to the ecological "wolf effect" I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was not as strong as first thought, but I'm also confident that has an effect of some kind, perhaps a stong and largely positive effect. Do you have a link to that recent study? I'd love to read it. Regarding closures, I support them when it comes to wilderness areas. We have destroyed so many parts of this world, that if closures are what is required to preserve at least some very small and limited wild places, then that's what we need to do. It seems the least we can do. "They want to spend 25 million on hundreds of helo flights in our wilderness areas where there's no motorized travel." I hope they can find a way to minimize flights. But helicopters will be far less impactfull than using roads. "There's a Washington state law that Grizzlies can't be brought to our state." I wonder if this applies federal wilderness? This is one for the lawyers to work out. "The support for this is soft at best." I can appreciate that in your view, or your community, the support might seem soft, it seems like the support was enough to make it happen. Some of the responses above demonstrate the kind of support that you may have underestimated. "The BC bear reintroduction has been a disaster, bears hit by cars and trains, bears in town." I hope they incorporate lessons from past re-introductions, and take into account the differences between the BC and NCNP backcountry. "The North Cascades eco system doesn't expand the brown bears range by even .5%., they're not endangered in anyway and are hunted in some places." See my response to Darin above. maximizing bear habitat is not the goal. Bringing wildness back to the wilderness is the goal. "People in Washington State are shaking our heads as we have many more serious problems to solve than bringing the bears back." I don't think you should speak for "the people of Washington state." See the post above to that effect. "This only sounds good to people who are clueless about the issue or young chest beating types." I neither clueless, nor young, nor a chest beating type, and I fully support this project. |
