400 Grizzlies in the Cascades

I'm sure many of you have been reading about this for years but it's this year a plan will be finalized to reintroduce up to 400 Grizzly Bears in the Cascades. Now I've heard about a one off Grizzly north of the Hwy 20 in the Park and for years have heard that the bear reintroduction will be in the North Cascades which in my mind is north of Hwy 20 and West of Ross lake.

Then I saw the map for the proposed reintroduction.

The south end of the release area is on the I-90! A grown male Grizzly can range over 1000 miles. That means a Grizzly could show up at dozens of Cascade climbing areas to include The Enchantments, Washington Pass, Darrington, New Halem, and anything in the Cascade Alpine.

The Government is trying to quietly throw this by us and I think every person who uses the Cascade Range for any reason should know the plan and have a chance to weigh in. Please show up to these meetings and speak your mind.

Your thoughts?

Eric

The public open houses will be held from 6-8 pm at the following locations:

• Cle Elum – February 13 at the Putnam Centennial Center
• 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
• Bellingham – February 21 at the Oxford Suites
• Darrington – February 22 at the Darrington Community Center
• Sultan – February 23 at the Sultan High School
• Renton – February 24 at the Renton Community Center

Well, that's sure to make things exciting. Perhaps it will keep the numbers down in the Enchantments.

A full grown human with a hand gun can range up to 24,901 miles.

I think this risk is something that you can approach with respect, education, and preparedness. In terms of man's ability to try and fix the world by doing short-sighted glue and patch jobs, this definitely ranks between "Good-Intentioned" and "Kinda-closer-to-where-it-was-before-we-dookied-all-over-it".

What's your thought on it, Eric?

I wonder where they'll come up with 400 grizzlies.
It's estimated that there may be 500-600 in the Yellowstone
ecosystem. Are they going to move them all north?

"What's your thought on it, Eric?"

Really I could write a small book on all of the thoughts and ideas I have about it and in the end I don't know if I have the right answer. I don't know that anyone does.

I've read extensively from both sides and the "main" reasons given for the reintroduction are to preserve the species for future generations and restore the habit to it's native state. I think there's enough bears from the 49th parallel north to the Yukon and in Alaska to ensure the survival of the species for future generations.

Returning the habitat to it's native state is a whole other discussion. What's the first or among the first images to pop into your mind when you say Grizzly? For me it's a bear in the river eating fish the size of a mans arm by a water fall. If you look at all of the places the Grizzly lives there's abundant wildlife in the form of herds of Elk or caribou that number into the hundreds of thousands. We don't have those kinds of numbers in the cascades. We don't have that kind of habitat. Our range is rugged and austere offering little compared to other Grizzly habitat. Grizzly eat a wide variety of things besides other animals but one thing that did surprise scientists in the Yellowstone Grizzly reintroduction was that the bears were killing half of all deer, elk and moose babies not the wolves as the scientists predicted. So if we put a very effective apex predator back into the sparce habit of the cascades how will that effect our meager deer and elk population? The National Park service put poison in all the lakes a few years back to kill all of the fish in lakes in the Park. We are going to have some skinny, hungry bears.

I think if mamma nature brings the bears south because it's such a naturally appealing habitat, so be it. But darting and flying to play Mamma Nature....IDK

And i don't want to be captain obvious but someone is going to end up this guy or worse....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK609rbSBLs

They certainly have a temper, and though they mostly/normally don't want anything to do with us--their behavior changes when they're hungry. I don't think they have the food here, and I've been around them in Alaska. I know that there's a lot more meat up there compared to N Cascades.

You notice that they're not trying to put them in Yosemite?!? The biggest one every recorded thrived there. Where do we draw the line? More North.

It's going to be controversial, but I agree, this isn't the best place at this time.

The horror!

Almost every grizzly I've ever run into has bolted. The rest have ignored me.

Yes, they sometimes attack. Statistically, you're far more likely to die driving, though I guess that doesn't comfort the mauled.

Grizzlies and wolves are living symbols of the wild and essential components in its health. If they scare you that much, go somewhere else or go to the climbing gym. Don't forget to rip your shirt off like an angry beast.

Man trying to restore what they screwed up generations before. Nothing wrong with that ... usually.

RMS wrote:If they scare you that much, go somewhere else or go to the climbing gym. Don't forget to rip your shirt off like an angry beast.

Wow! The risks pertain less to those who know a lot about wilderness, and more to those who are vulnerable visitors near the roads: children, ignorant city dwellers, generally vulnerable people. The majority of people on this site are not the likeliest victims of an unruly bear prowling near Hwy. 20 in July.

Don't be a dick, RMS

Awesome! They belong here. If only to keep man humble.

I'm glad this topic cane up on here. Climbers always have such a surprisingly diverse range of opinion, and I don't expect this topic to be any different. Personally this issue is extremely important to me. I live in the foothills of the Cascades, I work in the mountains, often by myself for many days at a time. My girlfriend also works in the Cascades, often by herself, and often for over a week at a time. And of course we spend a good portion of our free time climbing and recreating in the Cascades. We've had numerous conversations about what this reintroduction would mean for our personal and professional lives, our safety, and the character of our wilderness areas. But nonetheless I'm still undecided. I withheld making an opinion until I had a better understanding of what is actually proposed in each of the alternatives.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available to the public online, and has all the details. Definitely check it out. If I remember correctly, these are the proposal alternatives:

A. No action alternative

B. Release 10 bears over 2 years, then monitor for 2 more years. After that, a decision will be made to either repeat this cycle, or carry onto alt C

C. Release up to 25 bears over 5-10 years

D. Introduce as many bears as are available until population reaches 200 over 25 years

For all of the above alternatives, the restoration goal is 200 bears. The alternatives are unique means to that goal. I don't know where the 400 bears number mentioned by the OP came from, but I don't believe it's in the Draft EIS.

Also, I believe the map posted above is a map of the greater North Cascades Ecosystem. If I understand correctly, the introductions will probably not be scattered across the ecosystem, but will be near enough to each other to facilitate mating. This would mean some parts of the ecosystem would be more or less devoid of bears (at least at first), while other areas would have a population density closer to the target density.

But I'm still trying to educate myself and figure it all out.

This is such an important topic, and a great one to exercise our role in the NEPA process and make public comments! I'm excited to see where this conversation goes!

parkplanning.nps.gov/docume…

George W wrote: Wow! The risks pertain less to those who know a lot about wilderness, and more to those who are vulnerable visitors near the roads: children, ignorant city dwellers, generally vulnerable people. The majority of people on this site are not the likeliest victims of an unruly bear prowling near Hwy. 20 in July. Don't be a dick, RMS

Sounds good to me. Ever been driving behind an ignorant city dweller during leaf peeping season?

Man overpopulates Earth, Man kills bears, Man makes more bears, Bears kill man. Is that ironic?

Seriously, if there's enough food for all these grizzlies I'm for it. Thing is between dams, houses and highways I can't believe there is. I would like to see the research before I buy into all this.

The "not enough food/meat" for the bears seems pretty important. I couldn't find (doesn't mean it's not there) this issue addressed in the EIS linked above. Does anyone know if there's objective data on this?

Seems like option B (10 bears over 2 years, study for 2 more years, then decide whether to continue) might be the smartest option.

Optimistic wrote:The "not enough food/meat" for the bears seems pretty important. I couldn't find (doesn't mean it's not there) this issue addressed in the EIS linked above. Does anyone know if there's objective data on this? Seems like option B (10 bears over 2 years, study for 2 more years, then decide whether to continue) might be the smartest option.

I think that's the problem--it's not addressed in detail, one way or another. The analysis for the bears was conducted between '86 and '91, and though not much has changed in the park with the food sources, the number of people recreating certainly has.

The plan acknowledges that there is potential for negative interactions with people, albeit rare, they cite areas that aren't utilized like the North Cascades. Their references aren't alpine playgrounds.

I love the idea of preserving the species, but that's not what this is about. This plan is simply the re-introduction to a particular area, with no particular need beyond the fact that they roamed here before we did. It seems like a good idea to a bunch of people, but their reasons include shit like this: "Provide Pacific Northwest residents and visitors with the opportunity to again experience grizzly bears in their native habitat".

I'm not stoked.

s.price wrote:The South San Juan Wilderness has been empty of Griz since 79 according to those in power. Not true.

I would totally be stoked if this were the case, but what type of evidence is there?

I shared a bus ride with a dude that was (supposedly) breeding and releasing wolves into RMNP. Interesting ride.

Optimistic wrote:The "not enough food/meat" for the bears seems pretty important. I couldn't find (doesn't mean it's not there) this issue addressed in the EIS linked above. Does anyone know if there's objective data on this? Seems like option B (10 bears over 2 years, study for 2 more years, then decide whether to continue) might be the smartest option.

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).

Eric Thompson wrote:I'm sure many of you have been reading about this for years but it's this year a plan will be finalized to reintroduce up to 400 Grizzly Bears in the Cascades.

That's far from correct. I don't know where your 400 came from, but the EIS alternatives address an ultimate population of 200 bears in the NCE. Two of the three action alternatives plan to introduce up to 25 bears over a period of years (basically a founder population), with the possibility of continuing releases after 4 or so years of monitoring after the final releases. Alternative D includes the reintroduction of 155-168 bears (still far from your 400). It's common in EIS production that they'll include a "no holds barred" alternative, just covering the bases such as unlimited funding, little controversy, wet dream type of stuff. I'd posit that Alt D is that, and, although analyzed, will not be considered seriously.

If we can't share with Grizzlies and Wolves (and all large mammalian species) then it's our loss in terms of impoverished wild spaces. It's also just another indication there are far too many of us. I'm old and glad of it. Will all large mammalian species be all but extinct at the turn of the next century? Quite possibly and that's not a world I would want to live in.

After taking a quick look at some statistics, since 2000 in North America there have been 10 deadly grizzly bear attacks (from Backpacker Magazine). Compared to the 26 fatal dog attacks every year, I think that the safety aspect is a rather poor argument. In addition, the concern about a lack of food to me seems to be a decision that should be left do those with advance degrees in wildlife biology and ecology. They are actually trained to make those decisions.

Skibo wrote: 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).

Thanks Skibo.

Interestingly, when I was telling my 6yo daughter about this plan, her reaction was, "What? Why? Aren't grizzly bears dangerous?" So that's one perspective.