"Unleashing" grizzly bears in Washington

I keep picturing Joe Biden walking his pet grizzly bear on a leash. Highly recommend picturing it, I got a good laugh.
 
Benfromalbuquerque said:
I believe CA should get first dibs on these unleashed beasts. Mountain lions, black bears, occasional wolves and wolverines too. Yet it is the grizzly on the flag and it should be there too with the other predators.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and then did some homework. Theres groups (liberal) actively studying reintroduction in CA specifically and the left coast in general. The issue is actually creating an isolated population in CA which they do not want to do. So naturally that makes WA first, Oregon next, and CA last (unfortunately).

My buddy swears he had a wolverine cross in front of his truck in an area we hunt, which isnt that far from the last known sighting.

To relate WA reintroduction to hunting... if there are more grizzlies in connected areas, they will be off the endangered or threatened list even faster. That opens the door to management by hunting which is past due in their current home range. Their expanded range is much larger of course than acknowledged. Yes there will be human/griz conflicts. Yes people could die. One quote from the liberal group stuck out though, forget the author' name.

"Wilderness areas were not created to protect man from animals. They were created to protect animals from man". Unleash the griz in the Wilderness areas first. Those outside it should be fair game for livestock/pet/people conflicts. Then bring in hunting once everything is established.

Would be nice if they reintroduced sheep and elk to a lot of these areas too where they used to be abundant. You would think that reintroducing and establishing a potential prey animal would help in reintroducing an apex predator...
 
Moserkr said:
I agree with you and then did some homework. Theres groups (liberal) actively studying reintroduction in CA specifically and the left coast in general. The issue is actually creating an isolated population in CA which they do not want to do. So naturally that makes WA first, Oregon next, and CA last (unfortunately).

My buddy swears he had a wolverine cross in front of his truck in an area we hunt, which isnt that far from the last known sighting.

To relate WA reintroduction to hunting... if there are more grizzlies in connected areas, they will be off the endangered or threatened list even faster. That opens the door to management by hunting which is past due in their current home range. Their expanded range is much larger of course than acknowledged. Yes there will be human/griz conflicts. Yes people could die. One quote from the liberal group stuck out though, forget the author' name.

"Wilderness areas were not created to protect man from animals. They were created to protect animals from man". Unleash the griz in the Wilderness areas first. Those outside it should be fair game for livestock/pet/people conflicts. Then bring in hunting once everything is established.

Would be nice if they reintroduced sheep and elk to a lot of these areas too where they used to be abundant. You would think that reintroducing and establishing a potential prey animal would help in reintroducing an apex predator...
Click to expand...
If WA had a trustworthy wildlife commission that wasn't bent on removing the NAM as a means to manage wildlife (check out the great HT podcast on the subject), then I would agree with the above. But given that they have already banned spring black bear and are making moves to try and remove hunting completely, I would be very concerned. WA's commission is not hunter friendly, and even an increase in encounters would not likely cause them to think of hunting as an appropriate management tool.
 
Elky Welky said:
If WA had a trustworthy wildlife commission that wasn't bent on removing the NAM as a means to manage wildlife (check out the great HT podcast on the subject), then I would agree with the above. But given that they have already banned spring black bear and are making moves to try and remove hunting completely, I would be very concerned. WA's commission is not hunter friendly, and even an increase in encounters would not likely cause them to think of hunting as an appropriate management tool.
Click to expand...
I dont disagree at all. Whole heartedly agree with you. Was actually surprised to listen to a CA board meeting and hear how they were pro-hunting for bear and rejected the bear hunting ban. Wish we had a spring season.

I will say we need to be involved though. Otherwise it will be done without our input. Hunters are vastly outnumbered in the lefty states, to a point that maybe even being involved doesnt matter. All we can do is try and argue the truth - the NAM is the greatest conservation method known and it works.
 
It's really hard to call ourselves conservationists and not support re-introduction. I personally don't want g bears, but recognize I probably need to support it. They're not the boogy man and they could help with our crowding issues. But it's also hard to support when it could have some rather strong personal implications. I live along the rural/wild interface. I have black bears already, I kicked a friggin' cougar last year just a couple hundred yards down the road and have had them on my trail cam multiple times. There are real ramifications for people if all of a sudden there's a grizzly bear out there. This year was a terrible berry crop, so the bears hammering the orchards harder than normal (or at least it feels that way based on how many I've seen), I can't imagine g bears not also coming down into the orchards during bad years.
 
Stocker said:
I just wanna see the public comments. There has to be some gems.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of comments/support in favor to WDFW, are or will be copy and paste from an organization supporting re-intro.

In Oregon at one point when de-listing wolves was being considered by ODFW, they got buried with emails opposing the de-listing. The emails were part of the public record, and virtually all of the "against" emails said the same thing.

Scrolling through them revealed many of the senders didn't even live in Oregon (they had to provide their residence). I imagine it won't be different with this issue.
 
156256Wenaha said:
I think a lot of comments/support in favor to WDFW, are or will be copy and paste from an organization supporting re-intro.

In Oregon at one point when de-listing wolves was being considered by ODFW, they got buried with emails opposing the de-listing. The emails were part of the public record, and virtually all of the "against" emails said the same thing.

Scrolling through them revealed many of the senders didn't even live in Oregon (they had to provide their residence). I imagine it won't be different with this issue.
Click to expand...
In this case it's US FWS and NPS, not WDFW, don't have to be a state resident to comment on federal actions. Agree though there will be mass form letters in support.
 
@neffa3 Im with you, on a personal level Im actually not a big fan of having griz in the woods where I recreate. Nor would I be a fan of them in my rural backyard either, and those conflicts absolutely will happen. But I look at Alaska griz and even the Euro Griz as examples of coexisting with them. Hunters have to support it or we arent conservationists, it is that simple. But in the end, management has to be by hunting. And it will be, no matter what, we just cant let it be by paid "government hunters".
 
I don't like the "we have to support it because we are conservationists" sorry that's bullshit. I believe that is more of a reason we should be the voice of reason to say if this habitat from top to bottom could actually handle it be it G bears, wolves, elk, etc... So maybe the habitat in the wilderness is great but what about when they come down into orchards or even cross country ski trails or the back step of houses because its the only food. Even to how is the state going to manage the species when human-animal interaction happens.
 
Moserkr said:
Release em in CA Release em in CA Release em in CA haha if I say it enough it will happen right?

Hiked part of a trail thats popular with the granola crowd. Girl straight picked up her lap dog to walk around me. Maybe she was afraid I'd eat it?! Her BF with the patagonia puffy tied around his neck, yet still wearing shorts, wouldnt even look at me as I said hi walking by. Silence from them. Grizzlies please. Either people like that learn about nature or stay out of it. Win win.

As for WA, OR, and CA for that matter... historical range of the animal. Bring it back. Cant call ourselves conservationists if we dont work to restore the native ranges of all animals. Transplant some elk too in CA so theres more of them.
Click to expand...
Historical range. There is a reason they are gone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
The case against Bush by Ron Reagan
Replies
12
Views
3K
BuzzH
B
Kenetrek Boots

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,027
Messages
2,041,738
Members
36,435
Latest member
Onceapilot

Share this page

Back
Top