Mountain Project Logo

400 Grizzlies in the Cascades

Petsfed 00 · · Snohomish, WA · Joined Mar 2002 · Points: 989
Eric Thompson wrote: 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. 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.
You should checkout the winter ROAD closures page to understand my position. Any of those areas closed on March 1 are served by trailheads that are inaccessible via car. So if you're the sort of person who is willing to snowshoe or ski an additional 40 miles to get there, I guess you're SOL. But the simple fact of the matter is that there just aren't that many people up for that anyway.

Of course, you should've also read the rest of my post, you'd see that projected maulings is a really good reason not to reintroduce. Ignoring that means killing a lot of reintroduced bears after a human/bear encounter goes bad.
ckersch · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2013 · Points: 161
Eric Thompson wrote: 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.
This brings up a great point: if we want to ensure the success of grizzly bear reintroduction, we should stop targeting the Cascades and instead stick them in the Puget Sound basin. Much higher potential prey density there.

I wonder if we can train them to use crosswalks so they don't get hit by cars...
Jimmy Downhillinthesnow · · Fort Collins, CO / Seattle, WA · Joined Mar 2013 · Points: 10
ckersch wrote: This brings up a great point: if we want to ensure the success of grizzly bear reintroduction, we should stop targeting the Cascades and instead stick them in the Puget Sound basin. Much higher potential prey density there.
I imagine all the Cheetos and Mt. Dew give software engineers excellent marbling. Plus, I might actually be able to afford a house in Seattle if I ever move back.

In all seriousness, the Griz are a difficult issue. When II backpacked or fished with my dad in Montana I was always a little anxious about them--probably because I grew up in Washington. My personal vote is to rip out the dams first, but that will never happen.
Chalk in the Wind · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 3
Eric Thompson wrote: 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, I'm sorry for being a dick in one of my earlier responses to you; that was not cool even if I felt at the time that it was.

Tomorrow or after, I'll get back to respectfully disagreeing with you. Cheers!
Smith Rock · · Seattle, WA · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 135

Did anyone go the the Cle Elum meeting last night? Can we get a report from anyone that attended please?

Here are the meetings for tonight and the next few days.

• Cashmere – February 14 at the Riverside Center
• Winthrop – February 15 at the Red Barn
• Omak – February 16 at the Annex Facility at Okanogan County Fairgrounds

Bryan Gartland · · Helena, MT · Joined Jan 2002 · Points: 623
Optimistic wrote: 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...
Simply knowing that grizzlies are in the same woods as me is a cool and humbling thing at the same time. And when you're lucky enough to see them in the backcountry it's truly a memorable event. That said, I doubt the Cascades are the best place for them in the 21st century. In the Northern Rockies there is abundant desolate and remote land to relocate bears that occasionally get into trouble. North Cascades, not so much.

A quick Google of the Yellowstone wolf history yields a lot of results. Just be sure to check the source before taking the results to heart... There is a lot of peer-reviewed analysis and a lot of fear-based fluff.
Chalk in the Wind · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 3
Eric Thompson wrote: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, I have been going to GYE as often as I can for 20 years now, and it's a place dear to me and where I hope to live eventually. Respectfully, I don't know what you mean about restricted access due to grizzly bear populations. Yes, I know there are places with restrictions on hunting and motorized use, and I know there are sometimes trail closures and campground closures due to bear activity, but off the top of my head, I can think of only two examples of long-standing access restrictions that have to do with the grizzlies.

One is in Yellowstone NP, in the NW corner, where off-trail travel is prohibited during summer months. This affects very few people, really only a few peakbaggers who want to access some summits from places such as Bighorn Pass.

The other is in upper Sunlight Basin, where there is a seasonal closure; if memory serves correctly, that closure lifts in late summer.

I'm not saying there aren't other access restrictions, and there may be small, highly localized ones I don't know about, but I've been out there a lot, and all over, and I've rarely encountered any issues.
Pete Spri · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 347

It will be like Glacier after a while, except far less visibility.

I wonder when they are going to start re-introducing wolves too?

Smith Rock · · Seattle, WA · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 135
RMS wrote: Eric, I have been going to GYE as often as I can for 20 years now, and it's a place dear to me and where I hope to live eventually. Respectfully, I don't know what you mean about restricted access due to grizzly bear populations. Yes, I know there are places with restrictions on hunting and motorized use, and I know there are sometimes trail closures and campground closures due to bear activity, but off the top of my head, I can think of only two examples of long-standing access restrictions that have to do with the grizzlies. One is in Yellowstone NP, in the NW corner, where off-trail travel is prohibited during summer months. This affects very few people, really only a few peakbaggers who want to access some summits from places such as Bighorn Pass. The other is in upper Sunlight Basin, where there is a seasonal closure; if memory serves correctly, that closure lifts in late summer. I'm not saying there aren't other access restrictions, and there may be small, highly localized ones I don't know about, but I've been out there a lot, and all over, and I've rarely encountered any issues.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/bearclosures.htm

Bear Management Areas
The purpose of bear management areas is to reduce human impacts on bears in high-density grizzly bear habitat.

Eliminating human entry disturbance in specific areas prevents human/bear conflicts and provides areas where bears can pursue natural behavioral patterns and other social activities free from human disturbance.


Types of restrictions include: area closures, trail closures, a minimum party size of four or more people, and travel limited to daylight hours or to established trails.

Download the Bear Management Map (1.6 MB PDF).

Yellowstone Bear Management Areas

Map showing areas of the park that are closed or are restricted for bear management purposes.

A. Firehole (803 KB PDF): Area (includes Firehole Freight Road and Firehole Lake Drive) is closed March 10 through the Friday of Memorial Day weekend. The Mary Mountain Trail (A1) (708 KB PDF), from the Nez Perce trailhead to Mary Lake, is closed March 10 through June 15. Through travel from the Canyon trailhead is not allowed, however, travel is allowed from the Canyon trailhead to Mary Lake and back. Streamside use is allowed from the point where Nez Perce Creek crosses the main road to a point one mile upstream along Nez Perce Creek.

B. Richard's Pond (443 KB PDF): Area is closed March 10 through the Friday of Memorial Day weekend. From the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend through September 30, Duck Creek, from the park boundary upstream to the Campanula Creek/Richard's Creek fork, is open to streamside travel. The area upstream from Campanula Creek/Richard's Creek fork is closed from March 10 through September 30.

C. Gneiss Creek (629 KB PDF): Area is closed March 10 through June 30. From July 1 through November 10, travel is allowed only on designated trails (off-trail travel is prohibited).

D. Gallatin (1.4 MB PDF): From May 1 through November 10, travel is allowed only on designated trails (off-trail travel is prohibited). A minimum group size of four or more is recommended for hiking and camping.

E. Blacktail (854 KB PDF): Area is closed march 10 through June 30.

F. Washburn (1 MB PDF): Area is closed August 1 through November 10. From March 10 through July 31, the area is open by special permit only. Contact the Tower Ranger Station for permit information.

G. Antelope (1.1 MB PDF): Area is closed March 10 through November 10. The Dunraven Road and related turnouts are open. From May 25 through November 10, foot travel is allowed on the old Road Trail from Tower Falls campground to the Buffalo Picnic Area.

H. Mirror Plateau (1.2 MB KB PDF): From May 15 through November 10, the area is open to day use only with the exception that from July 1 through August 14 overnight camping is permitted for a combined total of 14 nights per summer at the 301 and 5P7 campsites.

I. Pelican Valley (1 MB PDF): Area is closed April 1 through July 3. From July 4 through November 10 the area is open to day use only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.

J1. Clear Creek (1.1 MB PDF): Area J1 - From April 1 through August 10, travel is only allowed on the east shore from Nine-mile trailhead to Park Point. All other trails are closed and off-trail travel is prohibited. Campsite 5H1 is open (no travel from site). On August 11, all the campsites are open and off-trail travel is permitted.

J2 (952 KB PDF) - From April 1 through July 14, travel is only allowed on the east shore trail from Park Point to Beaverdam Creek. All other trails are closed and off-trail travel is prohibited. Open campsites are 5E2, 5E3, 5E4, and 5E6 (no travel away from campsite). All other campsites are closed. On July 15, all campsites open and off-trail travel is permitted.

K. Lake Spawn (1.6 MB PDF): From May 15 through July 14, no off-trail travel allowed and the trail between Cabin Creek and Outlet Creek is closed. Open campsites are 7L5, 7L6, 7L8, 7L7, 7M3, 7M4, 7M5, 6A3, 6A4 and 6B1 (no travel away from campsite). Only July 15 all campsites open and off-trail travel is permitted.

L. Two Ocean (1.2 MB PDF): From March 10 through July 14 and August 22 through November 10, travel is allowed only on designated trails (off-trail travel is prohibited). From July 15 through August 21, a permit is required for persons wishing to travel away from designated trails. Contact the South Entrance ranger Station for permit information.

M. Riddle/Solution (507 KB PDF): Area is closed April 30 through July 14.

N. Grant Village (498 KB PDF): The Grant Campground will not open prior to June 20, actual opening dates may vary annually. If bears are still frequenting the spawning streams after opening, the campground loops adjacent to the streams will remain closed until bear activity ceases. Campground opening and closure dates are determined annually and can also be located in the park newspaper.

O. Heart Lake (1.2 MB PDF): Area is closed April 1 through June 30.
Yellowstone Bear Management Areas

Washington to scale over Yellowstone

Proposed Cascade Bear Recovery Zone
John Barritt · · The 405 · Joined Oct 2016 · Points: 1,083
Donnie Radcliffe · · Washington D.C. · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 0

For me, grizzly bears are an important symbol of the wild and add a lot of value to the landscape. So without going into the ecology, I wanted to say that I think a place with grizzly bears is much spiritually richer than a place without, and that Washingtonians would be lucky to have them back in their state. Half the reason I love climbing is because it gets me back into wild places, among the critters.

Pete Spri · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 347

That "to scale" map of yellowstone over washington doesnt look accurate.

Pete Spri · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 347
Donnie Radcliffe wrote:For me, grizzly bears are an important symbol of the wild and add a lot of value to the landscape. So without going into the ecology, I wanted to say that I think a place with grizzly bears is much spiritually richer than a place without, and that Washingtonians would be lucky to have them back in their state. Half the reason I love climbing is because it gets me back into wild places, among the critters.
I am a Washingtonian and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I love the North Cascades NP and all of the national forest land around it. On another hand, I dont see why anyone would want to create another glacier type environment, and one that in thick trees, you will be right up on a grizzly MUCH more rapidly than in a place like glacier that is far more open.

Dunno, we will see how it plays out. I expect more people to be packing guns in the North Cascades now, which I am even less excited about than grizzlies!
Smith Rock · · Seattle, WA · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 135
Pete Spri wrote:That "to scale" map of yellowstone over washington doesnt look accurate.
Hi Pete and welcome to the conversation. I didn't pencil whip it, I was floored as well when I made it because the scale of bear closures in the years to come could be massive. And since you doubted it would you please reproduce it and verify my result? It's really important. Link below...

overlapmaps.com/

Pete Spri wrote:Dunno, we will see how it plays out. I expect more people to be packing guns in the North Cascades now, which I am even less excited about than grizzlies!
Guns and bear mace and with millions of people around; we are weaponizing the cascades.

RCWs > Title 77 > Chapter 77.12 > Section 77.12.035

77.12.031 > 77.12.037

RCW 77.12.035
Protection of grizzly bears—Limitation on transplantation or introduction—Negotiations with federal and state agencies.
The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.
[ 2000 c 107 § 211; 1995 c 370 § 1.]
Smith Rock · · Seattle, WA · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 135
Pete Spri wrote:It will be like Glacier after a while, except far less visibility. I wonder when they are going to start re-introducing wolves too?
Mathias wrote: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?
Luckily chronic wasting disease hasn't made it's way into the cascades yet and the department of fish and game keeps a look out.

As for the wolves...

Washington grey wolf packs.

I predicted before the spot of reintroduction will be by the teanaway pack but it may be possible to reintroduce the bears by the lookout pack as well.
c.cox.42 · · Seattle, WA · Joined Jan 2012 · Points: 10

I’ve got no problem with harmless armchair climbing and mountaineering….. I do however take issue with the armchair wildlife biology that has been a common theme in this thread. This non-scientific questioning of the habit value of grizzlies or speculation about the ability of the reintroduction area to support grizzlies without reference to the work of wildlife biologists who have spent years studying the subject seems irresponsible. I really appreciate the contribution that Skibo made by pointing out the part of the EIS that considers the scientific evidence:

"It's in there, under Affected Environment, Habitat Suitability (p. 43). "Four studies have evaluated portions of the NCE for grizzly bears (Agee et al. 1989; Almack et al. 1993; Gaines et al. 1994; Lyons et al. 2016). These studies all conclude that the NCE has suitable habitat essential for the maintenance of a grizzly bear population." And later "The results of these surveys were presented to a technical review team, which ultimately determined based on the available data that the NCE could support a viable grizzly bear population of 200 to 400 individuals (Servheen et al. 1991). More recent work has estimated a mean carrying capacity for grizzly bears in the NCE between 250 and 300 grizzly bears using a suite of spatially explicit, individual-based population models that integrate information on habitat selection, human activities, and population dynamics (Lyons et al. 2016)."

Though I feel like the the potential access issues are being exaggerated, I think the discussion about the value of unimpeded access vs ecosystem restoration is an important one. I personally am willing to accept some restricted access to make space for the grizzly bears just like I respect peregrine falcon nesting closures, ice climb closures in Canada due to bear activity, restrictions against taking my dog outside of paved areas in national parks, seasonal road closures, etc., etc.

As for the risks that grizzly bears pose to park user’s safety; I understand this fear but I tend to approach it with humility rather than the anthropocentric perspective that endangered predator species in the first place. I don’t expect everyone to share this perspective, but from what I can tell wild animals are one of the primary draws to places like Yellowstone, Glacier, and Banff and from my knowledge there has not been any kind of widespread or impactful backlash against bears in recent years even when there has been the rare conflict. Also, how many of us climb mountains that are constantly falling apart?…. I think we have more pressing safety concerns.

This will be my first and only post on this subject. I appreciate all of the perspectives and the ongoing dialogue. Over and Out.

Pete Spri · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 347

"Though I feel like the the potential access issues are being exaggerated, I think the discussion about the value of unimpeded access vs ecosystem restoration is an important one. ...

As for the risks that grizzly bears pose to park user’s safety; I understand this fear but I tend to approach it with humility rather than the anthropocentric perspective that endangered predator species in the first place. I don’t expect everyone to share this perspective, but from what I can tell wild animals are one of the primary draws to places like Yellowstone, Glacier, and Banff and from my knowledge there has not been any kind of widespread or impactful backlash against bears in recent years even when there has been the rare conflict. Also, how many of us climb mountains that are constantly falling apart?…. I think we have more pressing safety concerns. This will be my first and only post on this subject. I appreciate all of the perspectives and the ongoing dialogue. Over and Out. "
##################

Interesting perspective. If by most users you mean the throngs that drive in cars and never get out on trails, then perhaps that is true for place like Glacier and Yellowstone.

However the north cascades is far different. There is not a "loop" to drive and look from the road at wildlife, nor any great stops to park and look from the car. Additionally, the terrain isnt open like much of Glacier and Yellowstone, but heavily treed. The North Cascades is very much a back country park, so expect the one on one encounters to be much greater there, with much greater risk and "surprise" type encounters.

Sounds to me like you are as much of an armchair contributer making the claim that NOCA will be just like other national parks with Grizzlies.

Like I have said before, I am conflicted on this issue. I dont think there is a perfect answer, and this will be a polarizing issue because of the risk that it presents. You talk about ecosystem restoration, but the reality is that technologically advanced man is now part of this ecosystem and as much as people may try to restore a balance, the balance will never look like it did before white man and metropolises came to the pacific northwest, regardless of how much someone may want it to.

Ps, I have a degree in biology and spent three summers transecting plots off trail over a range of elevations up to 6000' over much of the North cascades for the USGS and University of Washington's Department of Ecology. I know this land quite well on a personal and professional level.

Smith Rock · · Seattle, WA · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 135

FROM C.Cox.42 "I’ve got no problem with harmless armchair climbing and mountaineering….. I do however take issue with the armchair wildlife biology that has been a common theme in this thread. This non-scientific questioning of the habit value of grizzlies or speculation about the ability of the reintroduction area to support grizzlies without reference to the work of wildlife biologists who have spent years studying the subject seems irresponsible. I really appreciate the contribution that Skibo made by pointing out the part of the EIS that considers the scientific evidence: "It's in there, under Affected Environment, Habitat Suitability (p. 43). "Four studies have evaluated portions of the NCE for grizzly bears (Agee et al. 1989; Almack et al. 1993; Gaines et al. 1994; Lyons et al. 2016).
These studies all conclude that the NCE has suitable habitat essential for the maintenance of a grizzly bear population." And later "The results of these surveys were presented to a technical review team, which ultimately determined based on the available data that the NCE could support a viable grizzly bear population of 200 to 400 individuals (Servheen et al. 1991). More recent work has estimated a mean carrying capacity for grizzly bears in the NCE between 250 and 300 grizzly bears using a suite of spatially explicit, individual-based population models that integrate information on habitat selection, human activities, and population dynamics (Lyons et al. 2016)."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's not science that's the issue, it people and how they use the science. Above you point out the "scientific" study done by Gaines. Well who is Gaines? Are we talking about Bill Gaines, the guy that is in love with all things grizzly, makes his living on grizzlies, is the architect of the grizzly reintroduction program Bill Gaines? So Bill Gaines gets to rubber stamp his own study to get his own funding and live his grizzly dreams? That's FOOKING #1 HORSESHIT!!!! We may as well call the Cascade Reintroduction area what it actually is....The "BGBG" The Bill Gaines Bear Garden.

That's like the COO of Monsanto taking a two year sabbatical to run the FDA. And I do see that these results were passed to a technical review team. WHO?

Skibo did point out that he and the grizzly crew are professional scientists. Now off the top of my head let me point out a few times when professional scientists have been dead WRONG.

Back in the 1930's forest managers thought it was a good idea to remove fire from the ecosystem. Obviously someone in Biology 401, where you magically become smarter than mamma nature and all armchair wildlife biologists, told them removing fire was good. Turns out it was a bad idea and the forest needs fire for a number of reasons.

Then the spotted owl became the Darling of the biologists. These Professional Scientist got endangered species protection for the spotted owl, entire towns suffered for job losses in the forest industry, peoples lives were destroyed and what happened to the spotted owl? The great horned owl a larger and more dominate creature came in and moved the spotted owl on. Turns out these professional scientists aren't smarter than mamma nature after all.

Then there's the recent no no with professional scientists pencil whipping the AGW data to get more money. (That statement is in no way, shape or form about AGW)

The point being Science is amazing and people are people.

c.cox.42 wrote:Though I feel like the the potential access issues are being exaggerated, I think the discussion about the value of unimpeded access vs ecosystem restoration is an important one. I personally am willing to accept some restricted access to make space for the grizzly bears just like I respect peregrine falcon nesting closures, ice climb closures in Canada due to bear activity, restrictions against taking my dog outside of paved areas in national parks, seasonal road closures, etc., etc.
I can't exaggerate what Yellowstone closes, it's simply a fact. If you mean exaggerated in that the first few years of bear introduction won't be that bad then i agree. However 20 years and 200 hundred bears down the road what will be closed exactly? We deserve to know. Not just have it put out to us by the very guys that waged the dog by doing their own science to get the bears here in the first place.

c.cox.42 wrote:As for the risks that grizzly bears pose to park user’s safety; I understand this fear but I tend to approach it with humility rather than the anthropocentric perspective that endangered predator species in the first place. I don’t expect everyone to share this perspective, but from what I can tell wild animals are one of the primary draws to places like Yellowstone, Glacier, and Banff and from my knowledge there has not been any kind of widespread or impactful backlash against bears in recent years even when there has been the rare conflict. Also, how many of us climb mountains that are constantly falling apart?…. I think we have more pressing safety concerns. This will be my first and only post on this subject. I appreciate all of the perspectives and the ongoing dialogue. Over and Out.
This goes right back to what do we want our national parks to be? Seasonal traffic jams full of cityidiot car campers stopping along the road to get a grizzly pic? It's not a zoo. The Cascades don't have a bunch of wildlife from the car type of viewing areas, it's too thick.

And whats funny is I keep hearing the "for" crowd waffle on this point consistently. On one hand the "for" crowd says there won't be any people bear interactions because the bears will be in remote places. Then in the next breath they say the bears will be a nice thing to view from the car? WHICH IS IT? Do they actually have any idea? And it's interesting that you bring up 3 national parks that are all in the Rockies a range with vastly different everything and far less inhabited by people. Lets quickly go over those numbers again 225,000 around the GYE, compared to 7+ million in Washington State 2+ million in greater Vancouver BC. So you haven't noticed any issues with the bears in an area that has 8+ million less people? Maybe that's a good place for the bears.

You do have a very valid point about the loose rock.
Smith Rock · · Seattle, WA · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 135
parkplanning.nps.gov/docume…

The above link is to make a comment before March 15th on the EIS.
The below pic has the only points that will be considered.

pic of graphic from bear meeting in Renton

Below are two pics of where the bears are going to be released.

Bear release areas circled in red
Bear release areas circled in red

Below is a pic of where they're getting the bears.

area the bears will be imported from
JK- Branin · · NYC-ish · Joined Nov 2012 · Points: 56

Woah.... Fish eye.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Pacific Northwest
Post a Reply to "400 Grizzlies in the Cascades"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.