kwyeewyk
Well-known member
That one I can accept as a probable grizzly, but I wouldn't say 100%, it's not a great photo and when black bear get extra large they look different.
Perhaps a number of decades ago, certainly not in the last few years.
WA Griz reintroduction halted
- Thread starter Irrelevant
- Start date
That one I can accept as a probable grizzly, but I wouldn't say 100%, it's not a great photo and when black bear get extra large they look different.
Perhaps a number of decades ago, certainly not in the last few years.
diamond hitch
Well-known member
Wait a second! Everyone in the nation and beyond pushed for grizz in the rocky mtn corridor. In the face of fairness I believe everyone should have one - or two. I kind of think central park deserves at least 2. Just for a breeding population.
No reason to wait - let USFWS bring them in just like they did for the rest of us. Great example of bucket biology just like they lectured the rest of us for generations. The same with the wolves. You really don't think you spent $24M for just 22 wolves in Yellowstone when the rest of us in Montana got 5 wolves and a USFWS truck in every valley and when some disappeared we got another 5 and 2 USFWS trucks. I am just amazed how well things migrate naturally.
Why shouldn't the good folks in Seattle have to be armed to fix fence like the rest of us. Why shouldn't the ranchers have to expect 15 - 20% losses in their calf crop each year.
we need to demand equal opportunity!!
Sorry!! Occasionaly some things just tend to set me off. I'll try to control myself.
No reason to wait - let USFWS bring them in just like they did for the rest of us. Great example of bucket biology just like they lectured the rest of us for generations. The same with the wolves. You really don't think you spent $24M for just 22 wolves in Yellowstone when the rest of us in Montana got 5 wolves and a USFWS truck in every valley and when some disappeared we got another 5 and 2 USFWS trucks. I am just amazed how well things migrate naturally.
Why shouldn't the good folks in Seattle have to be armed to fix fence like the rest of us. Why shouldn't the ranchers have to expect 15 - 20% losses in their calf crop each year.
we need to demand equal opportunity!!
Sorry!! Occasionaly some things just tend to set me off. I'll try to control myself.
El Jason
Well-known member
MTLabrador
Well-known member
As far as I’m aware the only “reintroduction” that happened was 4 bears from BC that were moved into the Cabinet/Yaak, which was already occupied grizzly habitat, in the early 90s. USFWS or FWP has never relocated a bear outside of occupied grizzly habitat, they legally can’t.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
I think any eventual recovery of N Cascades population in the US will be dependent on recovery in Canada. I think it's funny that the Washington N Cascades population estimate is "up to 20 bears", when the BC N. Cascades population is estimated at 6. Note that the estimation method is "expert opinion", which really is expert best guess. Same method was used to come up with 20 bears in Washington N Cascades. Until the Canadian recovery units are supporting healthy populations, I don't think there's much hope for a true WA population. Maybe if you introduced enough at once they'd stay in the Cascades and start breeding, but I think it'd be pretty isolated and a healthy population would need connectivity to Canada pops.
Last edited:
diamond hitch
Well-known member
Funny how we caught a USFWS truck with a grizz in a trap south of Boulder in early 2000. Guess they didn't know that. And of course the gov never lies. I'm more inclined to believe they never tell the truth.
I served tours in DC. Don't tell me about truth in gov't.
I served tours in DC. Don't tell me about truth in gov't.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
Ever thought that maybe it was a bear caught there that was being relocated to somewhere else? It’s public information where trapped bears are released. This page lists locations for the last 11 years.
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks :: Bear, Mountain Lion, and Wolf Relocation
Relocation of bears, mountain lions, and wolves
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 2,916
When you say 15 - 20% loss what are you referring to? I don’t value wolves over any other critter. I know a little and just did a bunch of searching. Wolves only kill a tiny percentage of the cattle that croak from what I can see. I have friends on all sides of this issue; hunters, ranchers, range riders, members of all sorts of conservation groups, scientists and more.
Ranching is a tough job, there will always be loss. I am attaching a link. I purposefully avoid reading text first at times and just read data to try to be objective. I strive to fight confirmation bias (trying to prove my point).
Ranchers pay about $2.90 a cow and calf to graze on public land in my area each month. Most free range the cattle and leave them alone. Some recently have begun employing (government subsidized) range riders. When a cow dies, and they want to be paid for it? Isn’t that the cost of doing business? This sounds like welfare to me. What do you think?
There’s a metric sh!t ton of cattle and sheep meting killed by poison. Also, I was stunned to learn how many sheep are killed by pigs. Weird. Don’t judge the title. Just look at the data.
Last edited:
That sounds very high. What kind of public land? The 2020 federal grazing rate is $1.35/AUM, which is a cow/calf pair or 5 ewes and their lambs.
Colorado hunters pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for domestic sheep killed by bears on federal lands.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
While it's fun to think about grizzlies in New York and California and where ever, the reality is that grizzlies were most abundant in the Great Plains prior to the arrival of European settlers. They prefer open habitat, but the remnants of the original populations are in the mountains mostly because that's where they were the hardest to find and kill. So we've made a decision as a society (a decision many, many people disagree with) that we will allow them to continue to exist in the wildest areas of their former range. The reason for this is that most of the original habitat is now farm land, and we're not giving that back, but also because grizzlies truly are so prone to conflict with humans that human-caused mortality becomes a limiting factor for them wherever they have frequent contact with human population densities.
That's why British Columbia, which has 25% of the North American grizzly population, has a big zone of extirpated and threatened populations centered around their human population densities. So if BC with 25% of the total population can't recover bears along the border, it seems silly to believe that we can re-establish an isolated population in the Washington Cascades. Recovery of the Yellowstone population is confirming the conflict scenario, with conflicts increasing along with the population. It tells me that even the largest wild portion of the lower 48 (Yellowstone and Northern Rocky Mtns in general) can barely support a viable population without conflicts leading to human-caused mortality as a population limiting factor. The Cascades have nowhere near the habitat or food resources as Yellowstone, and a huge and dense human population surrounding it. Washington is the smallest western state with a population and population density second only to California. And those densely populated areas are what actually look good to a grizzly when it comes to habitat, not the steep, rocky, pecker-pole choked forests of the North Cascades.
Hopefully we can learn from our experiences with predator population recovery and re-introductions as we go. I understand the frustration of those who live in the Rockies and opposed these recovery efforts from the start, but lets not cut off our nose to spite our face, because in that case I'd say grizzly recover starts in the Bread Belt, along with bison, elk, prairie dogs and the whole suite of other predators to go with them.
That's why British Columbia, which has 25% of the North American grizzly population, has a big zone of extirpated and threatened populations centered around their human population densities. So if BC with 25% of the total population can't recover bears along the border, it seems silly to believe that we can re-establish an isolated population in the Washington Cascades. Recovery of the Yellowstone population is confirming the conflict scenario, with conflicts increasing along with the population. It tells me that even the largest wild portion of the lower 48 (Yellowstone and Northern Rocky Mtns in general) can barely support a viable population without conflicts leading to human-caused mortality as a population limiting factor. The Cascades have nowhere near the habitat or food resources as Yellowstone, and a huge and dense human population surrounding it. Washington is the smallest western state with a population and population density second only to California. And those densely populated areas are what actually look good to a grizzly when it comes to habitat, not the steep, rocky, pecker-pole choked forests of the North Cascades.
Hopefully we can learn from our experiences with predator population recovery and re-introductions as we go. I understand the frustration of those who live in the Rockies and opposed these recovery efforts from the start, but lets not cut off our nose to spite our face, because in that case I'd say grizzly recover starts in the Bread Belt, along with bison, elk, prairie dogs and the whole suite of other predators to go with them.
Western Traveler1
Well-known member
A logical explanation. My problem is the outside voices from distant places obstructing management.
...then falling back to NIMBY
Human conflict hasn’t quieted those outside voices.
The reason California and Central Park are so often mentioned when wolves or grizzly are discussed.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
If you've been east of the front in Montana then you know bear are taking the plains back. Hell they had one near Shelby this spring.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
Exactly, we still have a lot to learn about how the expansion out of Yellowstone is going to go, probably better to let that play out before we get too crazy about trying it in areas with lots more people.
diamond hitch
Well-known member
Met with ranchers this morning and they reported 12 griz in the west fork of the Madison. That's starting to look like Admiralty island in the 70s.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
One near Big Sandy this summer as well.
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 2,916
Great points. People die. We go in the woods. We crash on mountain bikes. We hit trees skiing. We move into suburbs and chihuahuas get eaten by coyotes. Why can’t we accept we can’t control everything? We should let these populations naturally evolve using the best science we have while valuing each of them.
El Jason
Well-known member
It’s damned good bear habitat.
diamond hitch
Well-known member
Natural cycles are too extreme and result in extreme highs and extreme lows. In prey species, the habitat suffers greatly at the extreme highs and results in extended recovery periods. Modern game management is designed around balancing peak populations at a lower levels and shortening the length of the cycles without the extremes. A portion of that must also include managing the predator populations to keep the entire balancing act in proportion. That can't happen with the current limitations. There needs to be some changes to allow management to occur.
diamond hitch
Well-known member
Not wanting to sidetrack this discussion but I have paid upwards of $5 per aum on private land. That entitled me to lush meadows, quality fences and a near guarrentee of getting my cows back. On the fed land the leasor must maintain the fences, have limited access to water, no predator or limited predator control, uncertain egress to questionable forage quantity and quality (dependent on the year), on grazing rights that were purchased from historic rights holders since there is no method that I know of that allows filing of claims for grazing rights.
I find a certain amount of irony that there is a herd of cows on the fed land while the elk prefer to eat my grass. Dependent on the pasture, I'm not sure the price for grazing might actually be over priced.
I find a certain amount of irony that there is a herd of cows on the fed land while the elk prefer to eat my grass. Dependent on the pasture, I'm not sure the price for grazing might actually be over priced.
