WA Griz reintroduction halted

[44hunter45]

Is There an Ulterior Motive Behind the Fed's Proposal to Reintroduce Grizzlies in Washington State?

The fed’s plan to reintroduce grizzlies in the North Cascades could have more to do with the bears currently living in the northern Rockies.

www.outdoorlife.com

Why would WA want grizzly bears, when there will never be any accepted social tolerance restraint? They'll never be delisted. And those living nearest will have no say.

Interesting article and political theory. But I think the article is purely a politically inflammatory piece.

I don't grow fruit in Manson or raise beef in Winthrop, so I'm not sure I have any right to comment. But I don't see this going any differently than the spring black bear hunting railroading y'all got last year. So much of the counties of the Northern Cascade is rough country and not peopled. If this came to a ballot or Social Media debate, NCW would get run over again.

I grew up raising cattle and I see the risk to agriculture in region. But the reality is that those with the votes get a voice. The American Farm Bureau enjoyed the ear of the Trump Administration, not so much the current lot.

Do I need to say anything about the conservation record and policies of the American Farm Bureau? They would drain tile the whole of the west in the name of property rights.
They would certainly never want a sheep rancher traumatized by the loss of an animal, even if the rancher got over-compensated for it by USFWS. I feel for the ranchers, but I keep wondering why no one is offering to compensate me for the critters I lose to coyotes around my place. Certainly traumatizing to MRS45 when her babies get eaten. That makes me have a special loathing for those that enjoy the public largesse, but cry about how hard life is on their way to the bank.

I drive Hwy 20 once every few years? Less now, since my son is no longer at UBC Vancouver. The idea of seeing Horribilus from my car in the park is far different than having them in my orchard and cow pasture.

I like that grizzlies are on the landscape again. I would like to see more in the Selway-Bitterroot. I get that the Northern Cascades region has more humans, closer, than the Bitterroot.

There were two things I took away from the article:
First - As I wrote, I live in Idaho and don't have a voice in the economy and life of NCW. I strongly doubt Mr Lynn, "the vice president of marketing and communications for the Sportsmen’s Alliance.", and a Spokanite, does either. Most folks in Spokane have never been to Wenatchee unless they were going over Stevens Pass. God only knows if they could put their finger on Twisp on a map. The prize for the most column inches goes to the VP of Marketing for the Sportsman's Alliance. Mr. Lynn may have an advanced degree in apex predator management, but I really doubt it. If they had wanted that kind of input, they should have called Bart George.

Second - "Regarding those future assessments, the fed’s current proposal considers 200 bears to be a stable and recovered population. This could take anywhere from 60 to 100 years to achieve in the North Cascades Recovery Zone, according to the preliminary EIS scoping document."

I'm skeptical of the numbers the proponents are quoting here, but OK. Either way, I will likely be dead before the first sheep gets eaten by a grizzly in NCW. For a good many years to come, I would suppose a sheep in Okanogan County has a lot more to fear from wolves and cats than bears.

 

[old270hunter]

Too bad they won't put them back into Ca. We have more wilderness than any of the lower 48, except I'm not sure exactly what they would eat. The state has done a pretty good job of wiping out the mule deer, salmon and sheep populations with policies and practices, so this could be the answer to completely wipe out the remaining game animals. Our DFG can't even handle keeping trout hatcheries online.

 

[44hunter45]

Too bad they won't put them back into Ca. We have more wilderness than any of the lower 48, except I'm not sure exactly what they would eat. The state has done a pretty good job of wiping out the mule deer, salmon and sheep populations with policies and practices, so this could be the answer to completely wipe out the remaining game animals. Our DFG can't even handle keeping trout hatcheries online.

Hey, at least they are still on the flag.

 

[Irrelevant]

Interesting article and political theory. But I think the article is purely a politically inflammatory piece.

I don't grow fruit in Manson or raise beef in Winthrop, so I'm not sure I have any right to comment. But I don't see this going any differently than the spring black bear hunting railroading y'all got last year. So much of the counties of the Northern Cascade is rough country and not peopled. If this came to a ballot or Social Media debate, NCW would get run over again.

I grew up raising cattle and I see the risk to agriculture in region. But the reality is that those with the votes get a voice. The American Farm Bureau enjoyed the ear of the Trump Administration, not so much the current lot.

Do I need to say anything about the conservation record and policies of the American Farm Bureau? They would drain tile the whole of the west in the name of property rights.
They would certainly never want a sheep rancher traumatized by the loss of an animal, even if the rancher got over-compensated for it by USFWS. I feel for the ranchers, but I keep wondering why no one is offering to compensate me for the critters I lose to coyotes around my place. Certainly traumatizing to MRS45 when her babies get eaten. That makes me have a special loathing for those that enjoy the public largesse, but cry about how hard life is on their way to the bank.

I drive Hwy 20 once every few years? Less now, since my son is no longer at UBC Vancouver. The idea of seeing Horribilus from my car in the park is far different than having them in my orchard and cow pasture.

I like that grizzlies are on the landscape again. I would like to see more in the Selway-Bitterroot. I get that the Northern Cascades region has more humans, closer, than the Bitterroot.

There were two things I took away from the article:
First - As I wrote, I live in Idaho and don't have a voice in the economy and life of NCW. I strongly doubt Mr Lynn, "the vice president of marketing and communications for the Sportsmen’s Alliance.", and a Spokanite, does either. Most folks in Spokane have never been to Wenatchee unless they were going over Stevens Pass. God only knows if they could put their finger on Twisp on a map. The prize for the most column inches goes to the VP of Marketing for the Sportsman's Alliance. Mr. Lynn may have an advanced degree in apex predator management, but I really doubt it. If they had wanted that kind of input, they should have called Bart George.

Second - "Regarding those future assessments, the fed’s current proposal considers 200 bears to be a stable and recovered population. This could take anywhere from 60 to 100 years to achieve in the North Cascades Recovery Zone, according to the preliminary EIS scoping document."

I'm skeptical of the numbers the proponents are quoting here, but OK. Either way, I will likely be dead before the first sheep gets eaten by a grizzly in NCW. For a good many years to come, I would suppose a sheep in Okanogan County has a lot more to fear from wolves and cats than bears.

I buy into their theory a bit, but not completely. My biggest take away is simply if the fed won't allow the people who have to worry about getting their mail in the evenings to have any say in how close to people we allow bears to get then I see no reason to support it. The idea of bears in the mts isn't bad. And if the Feds would agree to that compromise then I'd be all for it. But they've shown that they even when they support delisting it isn't possible in the current political landscape, so why would anyone support it?