400 Grizzlies in the Cascades

Smith Rockwrote:

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. 

As someone who pays taxes the government is working for me in this regard. As one of "the people" i am glad for my tax $$ going towards the wilderness in this way. Just because you oppose something doesnt mean that it is government overreach, it just means you dont agree with a specific policy. For this paticular policy you clearly overestimate the opposition to this and underestimate those in favor. 

Also tarring and feathering because you disagree with someone is truly a take of nuance and restraint

@Smith Rock

Unless your intent is to satirize the views you appear to be promoting, I don’t think your comments here or in the other thread on wilderness anchors are having the intended effect.

Smith Rockwrote:

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. 

I think the Yellowstone ecosystem is unhealthy in a lot of ways that are only tangentially related to the wolves. Consider that bison are frequently culled if they leave the park over fears of brucellosis, and the national elk refuge exists specifically to avoid mass culling for the same purpose. There are arguably too many bears and wolves in Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks (I’ve heard that the growing YNP grizzly population is pushing moose closer to roads, but I can’t back that up with data), but outside of the park boundaries, they are a lot scarcer because of efforts to “control the population”.

I will push back against the argument that we shouldn’t be doing “experiments” at this scale. We don’t have a spare earth to run experiments on this scale, so any time we make *any* policy change that impacts the environment, we are running a kind of experiment. So telling me that you oppose this on the basis that it’s an irresponsible experiment tells me you haven’t really considered the context of all the land management decisions you *agree* with.

I am not smart enough to say whether this whole grizzly thing is a good idea in isolation.  But as a general rule for humanity, I believe pretty strongly that trying to un-fuck our past misdeeds by actively engaging in additional fuckery is a bad idea.

1) There are more ways to get it wrong than to get it right.

2) If we do it enough, we will get it wrong.  Frequently.  As we have in the past.  And getting it wrong can have severe consequences.

3) Extinctions and collapses of ecosystems are almost always the results of multiple factors coming together, while these solutions tend to focus on only one of those factors.

4) It is far better to focus our collective energy on preventing future ecological harm.

I don't think this approach to environmentalism should be encouraged.

BooYa 

https://www.sfgate.com/california-parks/article/north-cascades-grizzly-bear-reintroduction-stalled-20269896.php?fbclid=IwY2xjawJqpOFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHh9BPGkUEy9961mRL4DyVZ1y_opNiLQOvZ8HGb5kOV_uOu-V4TyCDnyPxKtt_aem_Vl7gyDI2jP86uKudiMuzxQ

A lot of people have been commenting on wolf reintroductions in yellowstone as an example of reintroduction plans gone wrong. This isnt my limited understanding of this at all. All studies ive seen point to a much healthier ecosystem as a result of wolves being reintroduced. It seems that their has been positive effect in Idaho as well, despite the state trying to stop it.

  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wol…

Jimmy Brickerwrote:

A lot of people have been commenting on wolf reintroductions in yellowstone as an example of reintroduction plans gone wrong. This isnt my limited understanding of this at all. All studies ive seen point to a much healthier ecosystem as a result of wolves being reintroduced. It seems that their has been positive effect in Idaho as well, despite the state trying to stop it.

  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wol…

Wolf reintroduction has been a dumpster fire and people who live in cites aren't abreast of the situation. Your comment really pisses me off because I've owned a place in far ne, for 30 years, Washington where we wound up with a population density 3 times that of yellowstone. Cattle get killed and the ranchers denied money. People have been seriously threatened by wolves. One woman was treed overnight and a NFS helo had to find and rescue her. The wolves killed the entire southern most caribu herd. Plus the whole wolves kill elk then elk don't eat the trees and the stream is healthy thing was BS. " wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone has led to some positive ecological changes, such as reduced elk numbers and increased vegetation, there are also negative consequences, including human-wildlife conflicts and concerns about elk population management. While wolves have indeed impacted elk populations, reducing them by about 10% annually, this has raised concerns about the overall health and management of elk herds."

Smith Rockwrote:

Wolf reintroduction has been a dumpster fire and people who live in cites aren't abreast of the situation. Your comment really pisses me off because I've owned a place in far ne, for 30 years, Washington where we wound up with a population density 3 times that of yellowstone. Cattle get killed and the ranchers denied money. People have been seriously threatened by wolves. One woman was treed overnight and a NFS helo had to find and rescue her. The wolves killed the entire southern most caribu herd. Plus the whole wolves kill elk then elk don't eat the trees and the stream is healthy thing was BS. " wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone has led to some positive ecological changes, such as reduced elk numbers and increased vegetation, there are also negative consequences, including human-wildlife conflicts and concerns about elk population management. While wolves have indeed impacted elk populations, reducing them by about 10% annually, this has raised concerns about the overall health and management of elk herds."

As I said, the research ive seen regarding yellowstone shows that the reintroductions have been mostly positive, healthier elk herds, more beaver, overall healthier eco-system, more wild and 1.5 million distributed to livestock owners for losses.

This last part, 1.5 million, given to a livestock industry that has already been heavily subsidized through use of our public lands and other gov support, isnt something that i necessarily agree with, but does show a compromise with livestock owners and that money is going out.

It seems that we agree that Yellowstone reintroductions are a success?

Im curious about some examples of negative interactions. One lady being treed seems like a small price (im sure she disagrees).  I see people doing dumb stuff in nature all the time. Two weeks ago in Estes Park, i saw a lady 10’ away from an elk trying to take a picture with her 10 year old between her and the doe. Dont know the specifics of the lady in the tree, but i see far more people doing dangerous things in nature, than nature doing dangerous things to them. 

The kid showed up later, but its hard to say a more diverse natural world is “dangerous”, when people seem to be the bigger problem  

Smith Rockwrote:

Wolf reintroduction has been a dumpster fire and people who live in cites aren't abreast of the situation. Your comment really pisses me off because I've owned a place in far ne, for 30 years, Washington where we wound up with a population density 3 times that of yellowstone. Cattle get killed and the ranchers denied money. People have been seriously threatened by wolves. One woman was treed overnight and a NFS helo had to find and rescue her. The wolves killed the entire southern most caribu herd. Plus the whole wolves kill elk then elk don't eat the trees and the stream is healthy thing was BS. " wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone has led to some positive ecological changes, such as reduced elk numbers and increased vegetation, there are also negative consequences, including human-wildlife conflicts and concerns about elk population management. While wolves have indeed impacted elk populations, reducing them by about 10% annually, this has raised concerns about the overall health and management of elk herds."

The reactions on this thread really surprised me. I thought climbers would be basically unanimous in their support for wildlife and wildlife reintroductions. I really don’t understand how climbers pride themselves on dealing with natural hazards as part of the climbing experience but somehow have a problem with wolves and bears. It seems like the central foundational challenge of climbing is rising up to deal with risks through a mix of skill and boldness. How do we wax poetic about bold runouts and dealing with the innate risks of the mountains, but whimper about natural predators?

How many people have actually been killed by wolves? I’m going to guess the actual risk is quite small. I’m going to guess the risk is quite a bit smaller than the other risks many of us routinely take when we tie in (though I’m always open to evidence that challenges my beliefs). I’d argue that this is just part of the objective risk landscape of climbing in a place where wolves and bears are a natural part of the ecosystem. Killing all the predators is aid.

Most of the arguments you and others have made aren’t arguments against the reintroduction of wolves and bears, they are arguments against the existence of wolves and bears. They are the exact same arguments that led to them being killed off when they were here. When it comes to the effects on elk and deer populations, I’m inclined to believe the wildlife biologists who study this and support the reintroductions over random climbers. Elk co-existed with wolves for millions of years and they evolved together, I’m having a hard time believing they can’t exist together now, even if it requires some changes in management.

I have far more sympathy for the wolves and bears that are a natural part of the Western environment than I do for the cattle that have devastated it, but I support compensating farmers for their losses to predators as a means to protect the predators and reduce the conflict. If farmers aren’t getting that support, that’s an argument for increasing the support, not an argument against wolves and bears.

Not listening to rural populations is partly why Trump gets their support.

I participated in a town hall meeting last week for NE Washington. A good portion of public concern was about wolves. Not the economy or immigration. Way overblown I thought, but there are small ranches that went out of business that kept cattle on their own land.

There is also a refusal to move wolves to the west side by the people on the west side despite the state goal of having them there.

Smith Rockwrote:

Wolf reintroduction has been a dumpster fire and people who live in cites aren't abreast of the situation. Your comment really pisses me off because I've owned a place in far ne, for 30 years, Washington where we wound up with a population density 3 times that of yellowstone. Cattle get killed and the ranchers denied money. People have been seriously threatened by wolves. One woman was treed overnight and a NFS helo had to find and rescue her. The wolves killed the entire southern most caribu herd. Plus the whole wolves kill elk then elk don't eat the trees and the stream is healthy thing was BS. " wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone has led to some positive ecological changes, such as reduced elk numbers and increased vegetation, there are also negative consequences, including human-wildlife conflicts and concerns about elk population management. While wolves have indeed impacted elk populations, reducing them by about 10% annually, this has raised concerns about the overall health and management of elk herds."

The reporting on that story certainly exposes some issues with the state of Washington’s fish and wildlife, but it’s more like Steve Irwin dying of a sting-ray than any kind of “wolves are a menace” narrative. Part of fish and wildlife’s (bullshit) resistance to sending that woman help was that she was near a known wolf den. That’s pretty plainly pup defense, not human predation, and thus not really a thing to lose a lot of sleep (or kill a lot of wolves) over.

The Wikipedia list of North American wolf attacks ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_…) is pretty illustrative in its sparsity. Granted (and the page goes to great pains to underscore) it’s incomplete and not super rigorous, but the complete rarity of wolf attacks on humans leads the list to contain mostly incidents of *captive* wolf attacks.

Some of the complexity around the Yellowstone wolf population is the ranchers’ extreme fear of brucellosis, so e.g. bison are wildly overpopulated inside Yellowstone, but completely absent outside of the park. Similarly, the national elk refuge is *right there*, but I can’t imagine they’re stoked to display wolves gorging on elk in winter anymore than they’re stoked to display elk starving to death.

Yellowstone ecosystem is fucked for a lot of reasons, I’m saying, irrespective of wolves.

Be better if there were 500 there!

Wolf fears are way overblown, and it’s annoying to read the fear mongering and hand-wringing tales.  I’ve essentially been adopted by a pack in Northern Minnesota and they have helped our crew deer hunting several times over the years.   Work with them and not against them is a recipe for success.

I’ve had many encounters over the years including 2 howl sessions where I’ve been completely surrounded with not even a hint of animosity or aggression.   More curiosity if anything.  If you act like a bitch you may get played like a bitch, but I can tell you first hand if you’re cool with them, they’re cool with you.  

Of course if I was a cow standing in a field at night, I might sing a different tune, but then it sucks to be a cow anyway.

Mark Pilatewrote:

Wolf fears are way overblown, and it’s annoying to read the fear mongering and hand-wringing tales.  I’ve essentially been adopted by a pack in Northern Minnesota and they have helped our crew deer hunting several times over the years.   Work with them and not against them is a recipe for success.

I’ve had many encounters over the years including 2 howl sessions where I’ve been completely surrounded with not even a hint of animosity or aggression.   More curiosity if anything.  If you act like a bitch you may get played like a bitch, but I can tell you first hand if you’re cool with them, they’re cool with you.  

Of course if I was a cow standing in a field at night, I might sing a different tune, but then it sucks to be a cow anyway.

Last years hunt we saw or heard wolves everyday. Only one deer tho. Between the fires, and the wolves, the success rate for mule deer in the Kettle Crest has dropped well below the good old days of 12%. Probably only 1/3 of hunters in the area compared to 15 years ago before wolves, judging by the number of occupied camps.

Few people are afraid of wolves. Just fearful for their pets, children, livestock and hunting prospects.

“The reactions on this thread really surprised me. I thought climbers would be basically unanimous in their support for wildlife and wildlife reintroductions.”

Like they are for government management of climbing anchors in the backcountry?

Ackley The Improvedwrote:

“The reactions on this thread really surprised me. I thought climbers would be basically unanimous in their support for wildlife and wildlife reintroductions.”

Like they are for government management of climbing anchors in the backcountry?

It makes sense that climbers aren’t going to like restrictions on climbing, particularly ones that are so broadly written. Comparing the two issues, one of them (the anchor regulations) has a massive effect on climbing, a small effect on the natural environment, and essentially no effect on wildlife. The other (bear/wolf reintroduction) has a massive effect on wildlife and the environment, but only a small effect on climbing. Only one of the two directly centered on climbing in a negative way.

I know there has been some concern expressed about area closures related to bears if they were reintroduced. I guess I wouldn’t mind if this was done on a short-term basis while they were getting re-established, but once there was a healthy population, I would oppose broad area-based closures if they were in place to protect people rather than bears. We could oppose those closures while still supporting the reintroduction of bears. Given all of the climbing in the Winds and Tetons, it doesn’t seem like that’s a huge issue.

In response to your earlier comment, I do think it’s valuable to recognize the concerns of local communities, but I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to make this simply an East vs West or city vs rural issue. I grew up on the East side of the Cascades, I live there now, and while my area has no plans to reintroduce bears or wolves that I know of, I would support that if it’s determined to be feasible.

Just to the east in the idaho panhandle they have closed an area for the season/year to hiking and climbing  due to a moose carcass.

Makes me wonder what will be done in high traffic areas of the North Cascades when other grizzly attractions occur.

It's really simple. At some point, you need to prioritize the land and the wild animals over people.  It has been the reverse forever, but now we know better.  The end point of the way we live is the destruction of nature and our planet.

• Reducing the footprint of agriculture and ranching and letting animals move and migrate over that land makes sense for many reasons. 
• Closing areas or limiting human access becasue of wildlife is fine.  
• Changing our behavior to protect nature is the right thing to do.

All of the arguments against the presence of wolves or bears, or the closure of land for conservation reasons, are related to ranching and the meat industry, hunting, and the selfish desire to go climb or otherwise "recreate" instead of leaving animals in peace.   There is also the deep-seated resistance to "government overreach" which is really just a political talking point that people use to rationalize their own commercial or selfish actions.

Expand the wilderness areas, re-introduce the animals that we can, limit the size of the ranches, farms, oil rigs, towns, roads, development and so on, and accept limitations on our presence and behavior in the wild. 

That's my view.

I don't get how a weird "nature" obsession is selfless while lack of it is selfish. I happen to recognize that while I may appreciate nature, it has ~0 intrinsic value compared to people, and my appreciation of it is as special and spiritual as others' appreciation of cheese. Mining interests may serve more people than a forest. That would make them more "selfless". To give a more extreme example, my coworker from an Asian country commented while we were driving thru a wild area around here for a while - "what a waste of land... in (his country) a million people would be living here". That to me sounds much less selfish than "save some bears", despite /selfishly/ preferring to live with a bunch of forest instead of another million people.