Grizzlies in the North Cascades?

[jdj]

Will some areas be closed temporarily - I'm sure they will but some on this thread make it sound like the park will shut down. That is not the experience in YNP, Tetons, Grand Canyon or in AK so there's that. Yes, my priority is wildlife. Read the mission of the park service: to preserve and protect resources while providing for the enjoyment of the same. It is a balancing act. Traditionally the park service leans toward preservation in part because there are so many other public resources and because too much "enjoyment" is seen to threaten conservation (I think this is often overstated). I think it is interesting that you are so willing to go on the attack of my motives but seem not to question your own. Who is being superior here?

As for behaviors post bear reintroduction - I suspect there will be more bear proof containers in campgrounds and communities. There will be calls to carry bear spray and bear proof food containers and/or bear poles to hoist food in the backcountry. The most important change will be your behavior. Will you go into bear country with the frame of mind of getting along and appreciating the experience or not. If not, that's on you. If yes, your experience will change in my opinion for the better. BTW - this is very likely far down the road for the Cascades, bears do not reproduce quickly.  

[JasonG]

4 hours ago, jdj said:

I think it is interesting that you are so willing to go on the attack of my motives but seem not to question your own. Who is being superior here?

Sure, that is how this all reads.  I'll go back to my ivory tower.

[Kameron]

I sure hope they put in bear boxes at the campgrounds. That makes things just so much easier than carrying bear cans/hanging/etc.

[AlpineK]

New grizzlies in the North Cascades sound great, but reintroducing Suciasaurrus rex would be rad.  It is the official Washington State dinosaur

 https://www.heraldnet.com/news/suciasaurus-rex-may-become-washingtons-official-dinosaur/

 

While introducing new grizzlies may be a good thing, I imagine a few new migrants are traveling south from BC

 

[olyclimber]

Meanwhile....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shoot-owls-california-don-t-175431421.html

[olyclimber]

Also check the size of this thing!  From out by Quilcene a couple days ago.

[olyclimber]

Sorry for the thread drift…

[JasonG]

We should rename this thread to "North Cascades climbers to have more first world problems"

[Rad]

"After the successful re-introduction of the Cascades Zebra, we will soon be adding apex predators who can keep the zebras in check. A pair of Siberian Tigers are scheduled to be released on Tiger Mountain in early 2025." 

[olyclimber]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/video-captures-cougar-chasing-pets-coming-within-feet-of-family-in-wa-backyard/ar-BB1mopOr
 

dang I can’t seem to escape these dang cats!

[Packrat]

On 4/29/2024 at 3:04 PM, olyclimber said:

Also check the size of this thing!  From out by Quilcene a couple days ago.

Where is this? I sometimes start my hikes by headlamp in the Quilcene area. 

[olyclimber]

On 5/17/2024 at 3:18 PM, Packrat said:

Where is this? I sometimes start my hikes by headlamp in the Quilcene area. 

Lake Leland. Two cats. One I believe is dead. The other is wearing a collar now.  Were you at (in general) in Quil?

[Rad]

If you have chickens and cats and small dogs running around your yard that abuts the forest, then you're asking for all kinds of critters to come in and eat them: cougar, fox, coyote, raccoon, bear owl, eagle to name a few. It's like leaving an open bag of Doritos on the counter and admonishing your teenagers (or stoned friends) for eating them. Not fair. 

[JasonG]

Maybe not fair, but definitely reality.  My guess is that rural landowners are increasingly likely to take matters into their own hands as predator populations continue to expand in the wake of hunting regulations changes in WA (elimination of spring bear, elimination of hound hunting, etc.).

[thedylan]

I think the pro-reintroduction position is pretty easy to understand: we killed the grizzlies and decimated their habitats and now we want to atone for our sins. I haven't heard a single person on this thread who is actually opposed to eventually restoring a healthy grizzly bear population, they just disagree with the NPS' method and lack of consideration of other competing concerns.

The anti-reintroduction position is maybe a little more complex, but I'll take a stab at getting to the core of it. All of us in our society already live under constant threats: debt, layoffs, decreasing spending power, productivity shaming, and wealth moralizing just to name a few. For those of us who are able to go to the mountains, it may be the only place in our lives where we get even a weak approximation of that feeling of freedom that is supposedly our birthright. And now the NPS wants to spend millions of dollars to further reduce our dying access, both by forcibly reintroducing a physically threatening animal, but also by increasing their ability to regulate and punish us out of the land. People opposed to it can't be NIMBYs when they have no say and no power--it's very clearly not *my* backyard.

When we talk about restoring ecosytems we need to start from a clear understanding of just how unlivable the human habitat is becoming too. We hate what we've become but we don't really know why. "8 billion people" is an empty scapegoat rooted in the belief that humans are inherently bad, which we only believe when we feel we have to disobey our conscience to survive. This reintroduction scheme is far less about a love of grizzlies and far more about an unconscious hatred of humans.

The discussion of Rotenone in alpine lakes reminds me of the ubiquitous use of 1080 I noticed throughout New Zealand (the DOC uses it to kill rodents). Besides putting it in traps everywhere they actually fly over areas and spray 1080 from planes. I mean it's literally chemical warfare. It blows my mind just how similar the liberal attitude towards "invasive" species is to the conservative attitude towards "illegal" immigration.

[JonParker]

https://issuu.com/kevinmax1/docs/1889_decjan2024_with_insert/s/61232102?fbclid=IwY2xjawG-Mj1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWQZhi15InprI7Dh9zvHjp2HNH3xnWI7pfRdnXkpc0JTJZIbJyG0jsBPgQ_aem_I4W3UaKjmpsTIbvy-Adujg

[Bronco]

Anyone know if the incoming administration has taken a position on this?

[Bronco]

https://methowvalleynews.com/2025/01/16/feds-announce-new-plan-for-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-west/

 

Feds announce new plan for grizzly bear recovery in West

JANUARY 16, 2025 BY ANN MCCREARY

Map courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a new approach to promoting grizzly bear recovery in the Western states, managing them as one population in a large area. 

Propose ‘landscape-scale’ management 

Grizzly bears will be protected in western states under a “new and comprehensive approach to grizzly bear recovery” announced last week by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

The federal wildlife agency proposal retains the bears’ designation as a threatened species, and manages them as one population in a large geographic area that encompasses all of Washington state and large parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

The new approach is a significant change from a decades-old practice of managing bears as separate populations in six areas designated as “recovery zones” — including one in the North Cascades, which currently has no known grizzly bears.

In announcing its proposal on Jan. 8, FWS also rejected petitions that had been submitted by the states of Montana and Wyoming seeking to remove federal protections for grizzly bears and turn management over to the states. Instead, the agency chose to pursue a landscape-scale management approach for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states.

The proposal would classify grizzly bears as a “distinct population segment” that includes the six recovery zones and additional areas where suitable habitat exists and where grizzly bears currently reside or are expected to become established as populations recover.

As part of the reclassification, FWS also proposed revising regulations protecting bears, providing more flexibility to agencies involved in research and management, and to landowners experiencing conflict with bears. The flexibility, provided through a “4(d) rule,” includes actions like deterrence, capture and relocation, or shooting bears in specific instances, such as during attacks on livestock or working dogs.

“This reclassification will facilitate recovery of grizzly bears and provide a stronger foundation for eventual delisting,” said Martha Williams, FWS director. “And the proposed changes to our 4(d) rule will provide management agencies and landowners more tools and flexibility to deal with human/bear conflicts, an essential part of grizzly bear recovery.”

Removed protections

In designating the distinct population segment boundaries, FWS also removed protections outside those boundaries in the lower 48 states, “where grizzly bears do not occur and are not expected to inhabit in the future,” FWS said. Grizzlies have been listed as a threatened species throughout all the lower 48 states since 1975.

A distinct population segment is defined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a population of vertebrates that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant to the species as a whole.

FWS said the new management approach is warranted because grizzly bears are moving between populations in recovery zones “indicating recovery zones are no longer discrete” and grizzly bear distribution “has significantly expanded.”

This increased movement of bears between recovery areas “demonstrates the remarkable success of conservation and management efforts” by federal, state and tribal agencies “and private landowners, who support coexistence with grizzly bears,” FWS said in a Q&A section on its website.

As a result of conservation and management efforts, the population of grizzly bears has grown from a few hundred bears when they were listed as threatened 40 years ago to more than 2,000 today, FWS said.

Recovery of small and extirpated populations, like the North Cascades, “relies on contributions from high resilient populations,” FWS said. “Maintaining all recovery zones together in one DPS (distinct population segment) will increase the speed of recovery in remaining ecosystems and the overall viability of grizzly bears, increasing the likelihood of successfully delisting the entire DPS by addressing the species’ recovery needs as a whole.”

North Cascades implications

Plans are underway to relocate grizzly bears from the Rocky Mountain area to the North Cascades — one of the six recovery zones — in an effort to restore bears to their historic habitat in mountains near the Methow Valley.

As part of the North Cascades recovery plan approved last year by FWS, after years of study, bears in the North Cascades are designated a “nonessential experimental population.” That’s a designation provided under the ESA for a group of threatened or endangered species that are restored in an area that is geographically isolated from other populations.

The grizzly bear recovery plan for the North Cascades includes a rule, called 10(j), that provides management options like deterrence, relocation or even killing bears, much like those just announced for the larger distinct population segment.

However, there is a difference in the way the management rules for bears in the North Cascades and the larger population of grizzly bears will be applied, explained Andrew Lavalle, public affairs specialist with FWS.

“Flexibilities under the proposed 4(d) rule are tied to the recovery status of a given population, meaning certain actions may only be allowed if the population meets specific recovery goals. In contrast, the North Cascades 10(j) rule provides these flexibilities regardless of the population’s recovery status,” Lavalle said.

Additionally, federal agencies are not required to consult with FWS about actions that could impact bears in the North Cascades, while consultation would be required in other areas within the distinct population segment boundaries, Lavalle said.

Legal challenges

The decision to maintain federal protections for grizzly bears was applauded by the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation organization that advocates for grizzly bear recovery.

“With ongoing federal protections, grizzlies in the Northern Rocky Mountains and North Cascades will have a real change at long-term recovery, instead of being gunned down and mounted on trophy walls,” said Andrea Zaccardi of the Center.

However, Zaccardi criticized the proposed rule that would permit bears to be killed in more situations than is currently allowed for threatened species under the ESA, for example, by property owners when bears attack livestock or dogs.

“While grizzlies won’t be killed by state-sponsored trophy hunts, I’m concerned that their recovery will be harmed as more bears die at the hands of the livestock industry,” Zaccardi said.

She also criticized FWS for not including in the distinct population segment boundaries places like California and Colorado, “where the bears once lived and abundant habitat remains.”

FWS has previously attempted to delist bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, declaring the population recovered in 2007 and in 2017. Both times the decision was challenged by conservation groups and overturned in federal court — in the latter case just before a state-approved grizzly bear hunting season was set to open in Wyoming.

FWS is under court ordered settlement agreement with the state of Idaho requiring the service to complete an evaluation of grizzly bear listing in the lower 48 states by January 2026. The announcement last week is part of fulfilling that agreement, FWS said.

“Courts have urged the Service to consider the interconnectedness of grizzly bear populations. This revision incorporates lessons learned from prior litigation while balancing the need for management flexibility with implementing conservation measures. The goal is to achieve the species’ long-term, durable recovery and eventual delisting,” FWS said.

---

Public comment period

A 60-day public comment period on the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed grizzly bear distinct population segment designation and the 4(d) management rule will open on Jan. 15, after publication in the Federal Register.

For information on the proposed rule and how to participate in the public comment process, visit the project webpage: www.fws.gov/grizzlyrulemaking. A final rule is expected by January 2026.

FWS has also scheduled public meetings in Missoula, MT on Jan. 28, Coeur d’Alene, ID on Jan. 29, a virtual meeting on Jan. 30, and Cody, WY on Feb. 10. More information is on the website.