North Cascades Grizzlies

[3325]

A movement afoot to reintroduce Grizzlies to the North Cascades.

Link: https://mynorthwest.com/3933260/park-service-considers-plan-bring-grizzly-bears-back-cascades/

 

[ianpadron]

No bueno.

If there was a proven path to hand over management to the state the second they hit objective, I'd be all-in.

Unfortunately in a state like WA it will be no different than the wolf situation.

 

[yohavos]

Link for the draft Environmental Impact Statement and area to submit public comments:

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=112008

The public comment period closes on November 13, 2023.

 

[stan_wa]

I wrote a email , even just for safety of all the hikers I don’t think grizzleys are a good idea in a area where there is tons and tons of people every weekend

 

[rentalrunner22]

Feel free to borrow some from Montana. No returns.

 

[Ryan Avery]

It’s happening and it’s nothing more than long term Gun Control/ Food Control.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

It’s happening and it’s nothing more than long term Gun Control/ Food Control.

Unfortunately people will say that's a conspiracy theory, until the official plan is rolled out.

 

[stan_wa]

I think for sure there is a anti gun agenda behind the anti hunting pro predator agenda, if people were pure animal protection I would think they would be anti predator

 

[DeePow]

It’s happening and it’s nothing more than long term Gun Control/ Food Control.

Can you please elaborate on this? I know there will be some bro-science integrated but I’d appreciate specific analysis of evidence.

I understand the frustration surrounding the transition of wolves / grizzlies to state management but I don’t see the correlation to gun nor food control. While there have been movements for gun control, few advocate for the complete banishment of guns.

if people were pure animal protection I would think they would be anti predator

To me it could represent some form of nostalgia when animals roamed the continental US. It isn’t necessarily fair to the animal because humans have invaded nearly every avenue of their life making survival and life without human interaction nearly impossible. It is short-sighted yet individuals want to integrate certain animals where they once were prominent.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Can you please elaborate on this? I know there will be some bro-science integrated but I’d appreciate specific analysis of evidence.

I understand the frustration surrounding the transition of wolves / grizzlies to state management but I don’t see the correlation to gun nor food control. While there have been movements for gun control, few advocate for the complete banishment of guns.

Peruse social media. Many wolf and bear nutters are openly saying predators should be used to manage game species like deer and elk. And if predators are used to manage game species, hunting isn't "needed" anymore. And in their minds if you have no hunting, you don't need guns.

Have any animal rights organizations blatantly came out and said this is their goal? Not yet.....yet.

My personal belief (which will be denounced as another "conspiracy theory") is that certain entities want the overall population of these apex predators to be high for not only the reason above, but to use as a deterrent for people recreating in wild places. Environmental extremists do not want humans in wild places.

The goal of setting aside huge swaths of "wildlands" where humans are not allowed has actually been documented in The Wildlands Project. I'm sure if you do some research you'll read what organizations are behind this movement (Hint, they don't like hunters or firearms)

 

[Axlrod]

I totally agree with Wyo_hntr. It is death by 1000 cuts. They are coming after trapping and predator hunting first, and then will move on to the next easiest thing to ban.
They may not all consciously be anti hunting & guns, but the end result will be the same. If you pay attention to the "news" stories, their is a anti hunting slant to most involving animals. Just like they tie climate change to every problem. They have time, news media, and money on their side.

 

[DeePow]

Social Media can’t be a legitimate source because…it’s media. People want more gossip and drama which alludes to fictional, divisive takes on topics.

The Sierra Club and other anti-hunting groups played prominent roles partnering in the land acquisition for national forest, wilderness areas, and other integral public lands. Again, rather than relying on media, people need to come together or refer to scientific pieces. HOWL is doing great work but they consistently refer to anti-hunting groups as the “enemy”. This is horrendous rhetoric that only turns someone with a different opinion away. Robin Wall Kimmerer wrote about her transition of anti-trapping to supporter of trapping in Braiding Sweetgrass. An individual invites her to come along and witness the intricate relationship he has not only with the land but the animals he traps. That he traps with management and scientific data on his side, not a mere hobby.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Anti-hunters are the enemy.

Scientific pieces? Like?

The Cenozoic Society, Sierra Club, World wildlife fund, etc, are the enemy.

Here's a snippet from the Wildlands Project...

"One half of the land area of the 48 conterminous [United] States be encompassed in core [wilderness] reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades.… Half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone… Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands."

And a snippet from an article about the eco-terrorists...
"The Wildlands concept is largely the work of Dave Foreman, the principal founder of the eco-terrorist group Earth First! and a former member of the board of the Sierra Club. Foreman describes the Wildlands Project as an effort to “tie the North American continent into a single Biodiversity Preserve.” Foreman summarizes Wildlands as “a bold attempt to grope our way back to 1492” — that is, to repeal a half-millennium of Western civilization, with its unique blessings of material prosperity, technological progress, private property and individual rights. Indeed, the vision statement of the Wildlands Project is stunning in scope;

Our vision is simple: we live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska; when Gray Wolf populations are continues from New Mexico to Greenland; when vast unbroken forests and flowing plains again thrive and support pre-Columbian populations of plants and animals; when humans dwell with respect, harmony, and affection for the land"

It's pretty clear to understand what the underlying plan is, they are just using subtle tactics now. And hunting has zero place in their utopia

 

[ianpadron]

Can you please elaborate on this? I know there will be some bro-science integrated but I’d appreciate specific analysis of evidence.

I understand the frustration surrounding the transition of wolves / grizzlies to state management but I don’t see the correlation to gun nor food control. While there have been movements for gun control, few advocate for the complete banishment of guns.


To me it could represent some form of nostalgia when animals roamed the continental US. It isn’t necessarily fair to the animal because humans have invaded nearly every avenue of their life making survival and life without human interaction nearly impossible. It is short-sighted yet individuals want to integrate certain animals where they once were prominent.

I see this kind of "request" for information more and more these days among supposed sportsmen.

It's like asking for peer reviewed scholarly articles supporting the notion that 2+2 equals 4.

Typically involves mention of "conspiracy theory" or other buzzwords meant to discredit any reasonable demonstration of common sense or rational thought...and of course a mandatory statement that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy despite a mountain of case studies indicating otherwise.

Let's look at it this way:

In states where ballot box biology has been instituted (CA, WA, CO, NJ, etc) have hunting opportunities expanded or shrunk since, and have ungulate populations grown or shrunk? How has the public sentiment towards/against hunting shifted in that same time frame (roughly 30 years) in those places?

Let's take a closer look at WA since that's the state I'm most familiar with:

In the 1990s hound hunting for predators is put up to citizen's vote despite WDFW opposing that legislation, and it's outlawed by a landslide. The cat population has since exploded, and elk and deer numbers are down to historic lows from the Blues to the Methow...while the WDFW is killing problem cats with taxpayer funded hound work on an industrial scale lol. The same block of voters have kept a progressively further left governor in office since, with the most recent one responsible for appointing the commission which recently voted to end the Spring bear hunt, DESPITE the agency bios full endorsement and an estimated 35k bears. I personally know a fella employed by the USDA who's colleague kills North of 20 bears every year in WA for the gubernment because there are so many...you won't read about that in the Seattle Times of course...

Take 2 minutes to look at the way any environmental litigator .org feeds their members information...entirely devoid of objectivity and overflowing with pathos based propaganda.

Reminds me of the famous Martin Niemoller quote:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

First it was the predator hunters, then it's the trappers, then it's the ungulate hunters...sound familiar?

Now the wonderful thing about America is that if your prerogative is to keep your head in the sand, you're 100% entitled to do just that, but for those of us who have watched the slippery slope erode our hunting heritage bit by bit, the long-term goal couldn't be more obvious.

Perhaps a better way to frame your question would be "Who are the most powerful and influential people on Earth, and do they want me to be dependent on the system or dependent on them?"

 

[LostWapiti]

This is such a shame that it’s actually going to happen. I used to live and hunt Montana then also lived and hunted in WA and enjoyed the lack of grizzlies. Grizzlies create so many unnecessary issues in the woods just so that some people in the city have jerk off to the idea of having charismatic megafauna in their state in a place they will never spend a night outside.

Does anyone know why they chose this location and not to also put them further south? Is there a scientific reason for the north cascades or is it just because the NIMBYs who support it now will freak out if they try to put them too close to Seattle and where people recreate much more often?

 

[ianpadron]

This is such a shame that it’s actually going to happen. I used to live and hunt Montana then also lived and hunted in WA and enjoyed the lack of grizzlies. Grizzlies create so many unnecessary issues in the woods just so that some people in the city have jerk off to the idea of having charismatic megafauna in their state in a place they will never spend a night outside.

Does anyone know why they chose this location and not to also put them further south? Is there a scientific reason for the north cascades or is it just because the NIMBYs who support it now will freak out if they try to put them too close to Seattle and where people recreate much more often?

They decided on the North Cascades as it contains larger tracts of unbroken/contiguous wilderness habitat and fewer people. I personally think they should put them in the ALW and Southern GPW so that there are fewer people recreating in those once awesome spots.

The looks I used to get from yuppies while hiking into the ALW with a rifle strapped on my pack were priceless.

 

[LostWapiti]

They decided on the North Cascades as it contains larger tracts of unbroken/contiguous wilderness habitat and fewer people. I personally think they should put them in the ALW and Southern GPW so that there are fewer people recreating in those once awesome spots.

The looks I used to get from yuppies while hiking into the ALW with a rifle strapped on my pack were priceless.

Those areas do have plenty of unbroken habitat and could easily support the bears. I’m really curious on if we will ever see it. They also could make their way down naturally, especially once they get the sweet smell of elk calves. I just want to see it proposed so that we can see the reaction of the public.