Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber


      Thanks for visiting Cascadeclimbers.com.   Yep, we are still going!    Just put a new coat of paint on the site. Still the same old community of climbers, skiers, and people who love to get outdoors. Hope you had a great 2021, and wish you the best for 2022 and beyond.  Thanks again for stopping by.
Sign in to follow this  

Grizzlies in the North Cascades?

Are you for grizzlies being reintroduced?  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you for grizzlies being reintroduced?

    • Yes
    • Nope

Recommended Posts

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".B| yes vote from me.

Edited by Chris Hopkins

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this