400 Grizzlies in the Cascades

Sergey Shelukhinwrote:

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.

Was there supposed to be a “/s” added to the end of this?

Oh yeah, in reality I 100% agree with the previous guy vs the immigrant coworker I mentioned - caring for 400 bears vs million people living on the same land is selfless, and caring for million people over 400 bears is truly selfish /s

I am just really allergic to holier-than-though environmentalist attitudes that's all.

@ Sergey, the only problem with your view is that you, your life, and all human lives, depend on an intact natural environment.  

For purely selfish reasons, it makes sense to protect nature.  

Sergey Shelukhinwrote:

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.

Even in regions with much higher population density, there are typically still large expanses of land without much (or any) human settlement. Using China as an example, there is actually a big surplus of housing (it’s hurting their economy) and there is still quite a lot of open space in many mountainous regions, particularly in the SouthWest of the country. India and China both have legally protected nature reserves. Even if we take your friend’s claim at face value and assume his country has no wilderness, one might follow up and ask if that was successful at fixing the problems facing the people there.

Second, there is a shortage of housing in densely inhabited cities right now, but that’s not because there is a shortage of land, it’s because many high paying jobs are in big cities and people look for housing near those jobs. Zoning restrictions within cities have a much larger effect on housing supply than restrictions on building in the wilderness. It’s not as if we have a mass of unhoused people who would be living in nice houses if only we let people build houses in Yellowstone and Yosemite. There are already areas in the US where you can buy land for a thousand bucks an acre. If your concern is helping immigrants and people in poverty, I’d be curious if there are any other policies you support to make life easier for these groups, or if eliminating all protections on wilderness areas and getting rid of bears truly seems like the best and most direct solution.

Sergey Shelukhinwrote:

…..intrinsic value ….

To quote someone else: “I do not think that word means what you think it means”

I know what intrinsic means and that's exactly why I used the word. In my view, it's ok to argue that bears (or nature in general) are valuable because their presence make some people feel good/spiritual/... (among other potential benefits to the ecosystem as they apply to humans). That makes it about as selfish as some dude wanting to climb in the forest, or some dude wanting to chop it down to build houses. You can then argue about which one more people would prefer/benefit from. Like that housing argument, I didn't say I agreed with him - it's merely a different view of the same piece of land.

I, personally, don't know off the top of my head what the tradeoff would be for me. I have previously bailed off a route and reported a new raptor nesting area causing a closure; and knowing there are cougars and bears in the forest and turtles in the ocean makes me feel good. However if I ran into grizzlies regularly on approaches I'd start carrying a rifle... "It's coming right for us!" :) 

But "leave nature alone, every other use is selfish" is a completely different argument. Assuming that nature has some mythical intrinsic value that doesn't ultimately come from human preferences sounds to me like someone claiming blastocyst has a mythical "soul" that is more important than mother's "selfish" preferences or even health. 

Sergey Shelukhinwrote:

I know what intrinsic means and that's exactly why I used the word. In my view, it's ok to argue that bears (or nature in general) are valuable because their presence make some people feel good/spiritual/... (among other potential benefits to the ecosystem as they apply to humans). That makes it about as selfish as some dude wanting to climb in the forest, or some dude wanting to chop it down to build houses. You can then argue about which one more people would prefer/benefit from. Like that housing argument, I didn't say I agreed with him - it's merely a different view of the same piece of land.

I, personally, don't know off the top of my head what the tradeoff would be for me. I have previously bailed off a route and reported a new raptor nesting area causing a closure; and knowing there are cougars and bears in the forest and turtles in the ocean makes me feel good. However if I ran into grizzlies regularly on approaches I'd start carrying a rifle... "It's coming right for us!" :) 

But "leave nature alone, every other use is selfish" is a completely different argument. Assuming that nature has some mythical intrinsic value that doesn't ultimately come from human preferences sounds to me like someone claiming blastocyst has a mythical "soul" that is more important than mother's "selfish" preferences or even health. 

I may not agree, but I can at least better see the angle you’re coming from now and accept that your argument is in good faith. I guess my point to consider that may appeal to your perspective would be to compare it to the system we have now surrounding the ethics of different climbing areas. With climbing, there is no one “right” answer about how rock should or shouldn’t be developed, but whatever answer is chosen affects everyone. Different people and groups have different preferences, but we have reached an uneasy agreement on a system that seems to work ok: different areas are developed with different rules, and there is enough rock out there to accommodate all of the different development philosophies (aside from those that are universally scorned by the vast majority).

In some ways, this isn’t all that different from how land use is treated more broadly in America now (just much more informal). There are some spaces we set aside for massive urban development, some for suburbs, some for industry, and some where permanent development is restricted or regulated but resource extraction is permitted (BLM and some forest service land). A small fraction is highly protected wilderness areas.

Most wilderness advocates aren’t arguing that their view should be dominant everywhere, but only in the small minority of land that remains in a relatively well-preserved state. These areas are targeted to protect the greatest hubs of biodiversity and the most spectacular natural features in our country. To me, arguing against the protections these areas receive feels almost like trying to impose sport climbing on every crag in the world (I say this as someone who likes sport climbing), but unimaginably worse.

And we also have to consider not just the views of the current generation, but of future generations, because if we drive species to extinction or permanently alter some of these spaces for short-term economic gain, future generations will have to live with that even though they had no say in it. If our decisions and preferences surrounding the protection and developments of wild spaces were easily reversed, I don’t think I’d be quite so adamant about them. I personally am sad at some of the very cool species that are no longer with us, but happy that our predecessors protected Yosemite, stopped cutting down the last of the giant redwoods, and saved some of the very coolest places I have ever visited. 

There is a possible world where giant redwoods are just something you read about in books and see some old black and white photos of. Some of this is indeed a selfish motivation; I love these things with almost spiritual reverence. But it’s also a desire that these spaces will remain available for other people in the future who may never have the chance to share in this joy if we don’t pass down the torch. Anyways, it seems that I’ve accidentally written a novel of a comment and this has drifted far from bears, so here is as good a place to end it as any (except perhaps three paragraphs ago…).

Sure, let’s start with your yard.

Hey! I am uniquely qualified to answer this. I am (obviously) a climber but am also an ecologist, and lifelong bear enthusiast who’s spent thousands of hours in bear country, often solo and deep in remote terrain. I totally get the initial concern, especially for those of us who spend a lot of time in the Cascades. But I have to push back on the idea that grizzlies pose a significant threat to climbers or outdoor users.

Grizzly bears are generally shy and want nothing to do with humans. Attacks are extremely rare, especially when people follow basic bear safety protocols. In all my time in bear country (including places with much higher bear densities than the North Cascades will ever have), I’ve never had a negative encounter, and I've seen hundreds of grizzly bears.

Ecologically, reintroducing grizzlies helps restore balance. They play a vital role in healthy ecosystems, and this plan is a thoughtful effort to bring back a species that once thrived here. As the climate changes, we need more resilient ecosystems and bears do a lot of heavy lifting. They will ultimately be helping vegetation move northwards, they are unique in the way they spread seeds and are critical to the system.

I appreciate the need for public input, and I think it’s awesome that these meetings are happening. I just hope the conversation includes the voices of those of us who live and work in bear country and know firsthand that coexistence is not only possible—it’s already happening across much of the West.

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."

I’m a climber, ecologist (that focuses on modeling ecosystems), and lifelong bear and wolf enthusiast who’s spent countless hours in predator country, often alone. I understand how emotional this issue can be, especially for folks living in rural areas, but I want to challenge a few of the claims being made here—because they’re either misleading or just not supported by evidence.

First off, let’s talk about livestock. Wolves account for a tiny fraction of livestock deaths. Far more cattle and sheep die from things like weather, disease, birthing complications, and accidents than from wolves. But wolves are easy to scapegoat. In Colorado, there have already been multiple cases of ranchers falsely claiming wolf depredation to get compensation—something exposed through autopsies of the livestock. That kind of fraud undermines trust and makes it harder to have productive conversations.

As for the ecological role of wolves: the idea that wolf reintroduction brought massive benefits to Yellowstone isn’t BS—but the story has been refined. Early research painted a simple picture: wolves reduce elk, elk stop overbrowsing, willows and aspens recover, streams improve. Later studies pointed out it’s not always that neat—vegetation recovery varies, and other factors like hunting pressure, climate, and habitat fragmentation play a role. That doesn’t mean it’s false. It means it's more complex.

The scientific consensus still supports that wolves help restore balance to ecosystems. They influence elk behavior and numbers, which in turn helps plant communities recover in some places, leading to benefits that ripple across the landscape. And here’s something that doesn’t get said enough: healthier, more balanced ecosystems are more resilient to climate change. Predators like wolves help maintain that balance by keeping herbivore populations in check and allowing ecosystems to self-regulate. That kind of resilience—diverse, dynamic, and functional—is one of our best natural defenses against worsening climate impacts.

Yes, coexistence with predators takes work. But that doesn’t mean they don’t belong. The solution isn’t to eliminate native wildlife—it’s to invest in better tools, better policy, and better support for the people who share space with them.

Wolves aren’t the problem. Misinformation and fear are.

Wolves aren’t exactly the main problem for livestock or humans, as you say, but highly territorial, easily spooked, 300-500 pound average killing machines are a considerable problem. Personally I have no wish to come around a corner of an approach trail and be face to face with one gnawing on some carcass or other. With more of them, those chances go up. It’s simple math- larger population=larger number of interactions, some of which will inevitably have a bad outcome for both parties, which in turn provides yet another chance for access issues. I’m not in favor of “eliminating” grizzly bears, but I am also not in favor of increasing drastically more into high traffic areas where they inevitably interact with us, and us with them. 

Anyone remember the cane toads? 

Climbing Weaselwrote:

Anyone remember the cane toads? 

Cane toads had no history on the entire continent in which they were introduced. Wolves and bears are native here. There is no comparison.

The historical range of the species stretches to the coast. I don't see the point of introducing them to one area, I wanna see the species thriving along the Seattle waterfront clear down to Portland. It's only right. 

I'd reckon that scientists aught have 60% vote, land users 30%, and the masses a generous 10%.  

I vote yes to bears, wolves, buffalo.  Lets teach people how to shit properly outdoors, while we're progressing in a harmonious direction.  

Jess P's input is refreshing.  Here's to people who are educated.  

Jess Pressowrote:

I’m a climber, ecologist (that focuses on modeling ecosystems), and lifelong bear and wolf enthusiast who’s spent countless hours in predator country, often alone. I understand how emotional this issue can be, especially for folks living in rural areas, but I want to challenge a few of the claims being made here—because they’re either misleading or just not supported by evidence.

First off, let’s talk about livestock. Wolves account for a tiny fraction of livestock deaths. Far more cattle and sheep die from things like weather, disease, birthing complications, and accidents than from wolves. But wolves are easy to scapegoat. In Colorado, there have already been multiple cases of ranchers falsely claiming wolf depredation to get compensation—something exposed through autopsies of the livestock. That kind of fraud undermines trust and makes it harder to have productive conversations.

As for the ecological role of wolves: the idea that wolf reintroduction brought massive benefits to Yellowstone isn’t BS—but the story has been refined. Early research painted a simple picture: wolves reduce elk, elk stop overbrowsing, willows and aspens recover, streams improve. Later studies pointed out it’s not always that neat—vegetation recovery varies, and other factors like hunting pressure, climate, and habitat fragmentation play a role. That doesn’t mean it’s false. It means it's more complex.

The scientific consensus still supports that wolves help restore balance to ecosystems. They influence elk behavior and numbers, which in turn helps plant communities recover in some places, leading to benefits that ripple across the landscape. And here’s something that doesn’t get said enough: healthier, more balanced ecosystems are more resilient to climate change. Predators like wolves help maintain that balance by keeping herbivore populations in check and allowing ecosystems to self-regulate. That kind of resilience—diverse, dynamic, and functional—is one of our best natural defenses against worsening climate impacts.

Yes, coexistence with predators takes work. But that doesn’t mean they don’t belong. The solution isn’t to eliminate native wildlife—it’s to invest in better tools, better policy, and better support for the people who share space with them.

Wolves aren’t the problem. Misinformation and fear are.

The local tribes took 19 wolves on their relatively small reservation last year. They do support having them, but also need balance as subsistence hunting is still a thing, so manage them with harvests. The same population densities of wolves are in the surrounding public and private lands, but no hunting is allowed. And it is disingenuous to say few livestock are killed by wolves compared to other hazard’s nationally. To the rancher who has a dozen head on private property to augment his income, losing one to wolves and having the rest traumatized so they don’t eat or miscarry is a lot.

Some wolves are problems. They also do little to help the environment where their prey are already controlled by other means. 

@ Jess Presso, 

Thank you so much for your informed and throughful comments.  Your words are really appreciated.  

On the flip side bears not only 'partake' in the woods but also publish about it. What's not to love?

Collin Hwrote:

Cane toads had no history on the entire continent in which they were introduced. Wolves and bears are native here. There is no comparison.

Playing god to try to fix something that we already screwed up, in a scenario that has already adapted itself? That’s the comparison. 

Climbing Weaselwrote:

Playing god to try to fix something that we already screwed up, in a scenario that has already adapted itself? That’s the comparison. 

Species and ecosystem adaptation is a continuous process that happens on a time scale of thousands to millions of years. In what ways is this "a scenario that has already adapted itself"? It hasn't even been 200 years since bears, wolves, and bison were eradicated from much of the country. That's not even the lifespan of a ponderosa pine.

We should also acknowledge that humans are part of the ecosystem and we have shaped these environments for thousands of years. In this light, active management isn't really playing god, it's just how we've always done it, albeit on a larger scale.

Climbing Weaselwrote:

Playing god to try to fix something that we already screwed up, in a scenario that has already adapted itself? That’s the comparison. 

Some of us have a learned a thing or two since cane toads were introduced to Australia, so, no, the comparison is lame. Furthermore, we have no choice but to "play God". Humans are having an increasingly profound effect on the functional ecology of the planet where we live. We could go on going on without any attempt to mitigate those effects, but we have a pretty damn good idea of how that's going to turn out. We could also try to fence "Nature" off and try to isolate ourselves and protect "Nature" from the inevitable spillover--that's been tried too and is still in many cases the de facto approach towards conservation. In most cases, the latter doesn't work well either. We're left with the realization that humans are part of the system, and we're better off trying to change the way we live, sure for the protection and conservation of nature, but also for our own sake. If that means re-introducing grizzlies to the Cascades with the attendant ecosystem services that they'd provide, I'm all for it. And I find grizzlies scary to a somewhat irrational degree.