Grizzlies in the North Cascades?

[KirkW]

34 minutes ago, JasonG said:

 

Oh, and the EIS: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsList.cfm?projectID=44144

Thanks

[Chris Hopkins]

On 3/26/2018 at 1:27 PM, JasonG said:

 Grizz also aren't afraid of people, unfortunately.  

people texting and web surfing while driving are a bigger hazard then any type of forest wildlife. Cities are freaky places also. "Thank God I'm a country boy". yes vote from me.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Chris Hopkins

[dberdinka]

I'm not at all interested in the number of trail and area closures that are going to occur from this action.  Amazing they can find 28 million for this but road wash outs go years without repair due to lack of funds (fyi Ruth Creek blew out the road shy of the Hannegan Pass TH this winter).   Actually I'm beginning to think blown out roads are a good thing but thats a different topic.

[JasonG]

32 minutes ago, dberdinka said:

I'm not at all interested in the number of trail and area closures that are going to occur from this action

That's been my experience in both in Canada and the US where grizzlies are present.  Another selfish reason of mine for wishing the money was spent on road and trail maintenance instead.

[RonLester]

I'm with JasonG, I could do without grizzly bears in the North Cascades. It doesn't look like the "migration corridor" is all that blocked between the U.S.-Canada border; if the grizz wanted to set up shop in the North Cascades, they could (or will).

Not to mention that the Cascades aren't like the Sierra, or even Montana for that matter. It's a literal jungle. If it's anything like a lot of my black bear encounters, I won't even see the critter until I damn near bump into it. The only difference being that instead of turning tail and running, this bear has no problem with ripping me apart. Couple that with a user group that has little or no experience with these animals, and it just seems like we're pulling on a pair of Bad Idea Jeans. It'll all be fun and games until the NPS has to explain to some poor bastard's family why their loved one went out backpacking and got torn to shreds.

Just the .02 of a humble civil servant. Put the $$$ to better use.

 

[KirkW]

The "migration corridor isn't all that blocked"...huh?

This statement sounds about as scientifically accurate as something my father would say when discussing climate change. 

Don't worry...chances are you're old enough that you'll be long dead before there's a significant enough population of Grizz up there that you'll have to worry about getting "torn to shreds".

BTW...Grizz kill a fraction of the humans that black bears take out every year but keep on believing and spreading this nonsense that black bears are cute, docile and totally afraid of humans while Grizz are blood thirsty killers. Most people will believe you when you spread that lie because they don't know a damn thing about bears they didn't learn from cartoons, advertising or movies.

Response to this thread is pretty disappointing. I figured more of you would be for restoring a vibrant population of one of the largest and most impressive N American mammals to part of it's historic range. I guess we see now why they were poisoned, trapped, hunted and harassed nearly to extinction and no one gave a shit about them until it was too late. It's a lot easier to act as if they have no right to be there because it might impact where you can park your car and enjoy a well manicured hike in the woods. NIMBY!

 

[Chris Hopkins]

Bears are ok. I like wolves too.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Chris Hopkins

[Bronco]

 

https://www.opb.org/news/article/grizzly-bear-reintroduction-north-cascades-give-up/

U.S. Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt told a meeting of community members in Omak, Washington, that his agency will not conduct the environmental impact statement needed to move forward with the plan.

“The Trump Administration is committed to being a good neighbor, and the people who live and work in north central Washington have made their voices clear that they do not want grizzly bears,” Bernhardt said in a news release.

“Grizzly bears are not in danger of extinction, and Interior will continue to build on its conservation successes managing healthy grizzly bear populations across their existing range,” he said.

The decision was hailed by U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Washington, who represents the region in Congress.

“Homeowners, farmers, ranchers, and small business owners in our rural communities were loud and clear: We do not want grizzly bears in North Central Washington,” Newhouse said. “I have long advocated that local voices must be heard by the federal government on this issue.”

The Department of the Interior began planning the environmental review process in 2015 under the Obama administration.

The recovery of grizzly bears in the lower 48 states is an amazing success story, the agency said. Most of the efforts have focused on six areas of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and eastern Washington state.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has been the primary focus of grizzly recovery efforts to date, and grizzly populations have increased to about 700 bears there since the animals were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975.

The environmental group Conservation Northwest was disappointed by the decision, but did not think it was the final word on the bears.

“We are still confident they will be restored there,” spokesman Chase Gunnell said.

Gunnell said 80% of the people who provided public comments on the bears supported growing the population by bringing grizzlies to the back country in and around North Cascades National Park.

Gunnell said it was false that local residents overwhelmingly oppose reintroduction of the bears.

“This is not an issue that has just west side support,” Gunnell said, referring to more populous and liberal western Washington. “Public support is strong.”

Fewer than 10 grizzlies are thought to live across 9,800 square miles anchored by North Cascades National Park, Conservation Northwest said.

Given their isolation from other grizzly populations, the low number of bears, their very slow reproductive rate and other constraints, the North Cascades grizzly bear population is considered the most at-risk bear population in the United States, the environmental group said.

Grizzly bears were listed as a threatened species in 1975. They have slowly regained territory and increased in numbers in the ensuing decades, but they still occupy only a small portion of their historical range.

An estimated 50,000 bears once roamed the contiguous U.S. Government-sponsored programs led to most being poisoned, shot and trapped by the 1930s.

[JonParker]

Awesome!

https://www.nps.gov/noca/learn/news/national-park-service-u-s-fish-wildlife-service-to-evaluate-options-for-restoring-grizzly-bears-to-the-north-cascades.htm

[Fairweather]

So, the national park system has the money for this scheme--but absolutely no funds to, say, keep park roads open? I have no problem with Grizzly bears or wolves. But NCNP is the least-visited national park in the contiguous United States. Decommission the park, retain the designated wilderness areas therein, and let nature sort out which apex predators wander in and out. Maybe with some help from over/under passages along Hwy20 into the southern unit.

[JonParker]

All for increased connectivity

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230111075837.htm

Edited February 1, 2023 by JonParker

[Bronco]

I'm not sure why this is going through the NPS website as it will clearly impact a lot of area outside of the park.  Here's a link to leave a comment on the reintroduction of Grizzly bears in the North Cascades.

 

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=132104

[JasonG]

Thanks for the heads up!

[dberdinka]

Another misunderstood grizzly encounters two hikers

Fortunately a “friend of the family” (?) tells us it was definitely the humans fault.

"It's really just the reason why we're seeing more attacks, which is more people heading outdoors and unfortunately not being educated on this,"
 

But don’t despair this friend finishes with - adding that “only 14% of grizzly bear attacks worldwide lead to fatalities.”

Other 86% time it’s all fine.

[JasonG]

1 hour ago, dberdinka said:

Other 86% time it’s all fine

Good point.  My friend TJ said it was only painful until he realized he had to play dead.  Then the adrenaline kicked in.  Unfortunately, it wore off as he was holding his scalp in place on the hike back to the trailhead.

[JasonG]

On 4/10/2018 at 8:22 PM, KirkW said:

It's a lot easier to act as if they have no right to be there because it might impact where you can park your car and enjoy a well manicured hike in the woods. NIMBY!

Oh, and yes @KirkW, I am all for easy in my mature mountaineer phase.

[Bronco]

I'm thinking that if the current population is such that we have the occasional grizzly near a town, we probably don't need to introduce more of them.  I'm ok with the current growth of the population continuing as bears migrate from surrounding areas.  No need to accelerate it.

https://www.khq.com/news/grizzly-bear-captured-north-of-colville/article_03736338-5ef4-11ee-8f2f-ef7b408e478b.html?fbclid=IwAR0yX4qU4J3QHc-9QUvL46hNbUEvS8IOPWwZpQ8D5wyvak7DIalrlnZ9Uz0

[olyclimber]

maybe they should focus on reintroducing glaciers.

[Bronco]

Sounds like last night's public meeting was rowdy: https://www.opb.org/article/2023/11/03/omak-washington-public-comments-meeting-grizzly-bears/

[JasonG]

Same on the west side:  https://www.heraldnet.com/news/hell-no-to-grizzlies-darrington-locals-give-federal-agencies-an-earful/