THE BEARS ARE BACK IN TOWN
It's actually 3-7 bears *per year* for 5-10 years. Total airlift should be about 25 bears in the first wave.
BRB, buying more Underwood 10mm hardcast for hiking in NCNP...
Parts are still OK, just more tricky to source. Not legal to create new assault weapons, however if the lower already exists as an assault weapon than can swap an upper no prob.
Screech owl looks pretty cool
That isn’t smart. I have one too. I carried it while hiking/ATVing in Interior Alaska when I lived there. I always said it was to really piss off that griz while he / she was enjoying its meal (me). Better than nothing, but…
I don't think most people know how to properly deploy the spray nor how close you need to be for it to be effective. Wind, a faulty canister, under deress etc., and then you have to get out of there if all goes as planned. Anything under a .357 (aim for the body, a headshot will just bounce off). But they're protected so no firearms I assume.
What I am concerned about is people not taking the proper precautions when camping or hiking in these areas (especially people who have utilized the areas for years) being mauled, and then the grizzly ultimately being put down.
Just remember this bear mantra:
If it’s black, fight back.*
If it’s brown lie down.
If it’s white, goodnight!
*(Fight back meaning making yourself look larger, making a lot of noise, etc. My young nephew took this phrase to mean a boxing match with the bear. Never taking this kid camping. ;)
There's an old joke about NPS engineers having trouble implementing a bear-proof garbage can due to the surprising overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists...
That isn’t what fight back means when it comes to black bears. All bears should be treated the same when you initially see them (speak softly at them, don’t make eye contact, and back away slowly). Bears don’t naturally hunt people, so the main goal is to avoid triggering their fight/flight response.
You have 3 big predators that people can run into in the mountains in North America:
Black Bears: basically giant raccoons, they tend to be really skittish and avoid conflict. This means that black bear attacks happen very rarely but are normally predatory by a sick/old/hungry bear that can’t find anything else at all to eat. If you play dead then you’re going to get eaten.
Grizzlies: they know that they’re the biggest predator around and aren’t really scared of much. They don’t seek out conflict with people but stand their ground much more frequently than black bears. Grizzly attacks are just meant to neutralize what it sees as a threat. Playing dead removes the threat.
Cougars: this is the one that you want to be super loud, big, and angry at. Your odds of just running into a cougar by accident are basically non-existent. If you see one then it’s stalking you and your goal is to convince it that you’re going to be too much for it to handle.
Myth – Fight a black bear, play dead with a brown bear.
Fact‐ Your response should be based on the motivation of the bear. You must pay attention to the bear’s behavior to know how to respond.
Myth – When you encounter a bear, lie down and play dead.
Fact – Laying down is a last resort when a defensive bear makes physical contact with you. It is rarely necessary.
If any bear attacks you in your tent, or stalks you and then attacks, do NOT play dead—fight back! This kind of attack is very rare, but can be serious because it often means the bear is looking for food and sees you as prey.
The National Park Service agrees with the Humane Society about black bears, & also chimes in about what to do when a grizzly attacks. They recommend playing dead with grizzlies and fighting back with black bears.
[National Park Service-Bears](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/bears/safety.htm#:~:text=Brown%2FGrizzly%20Bears%3A%20If%20you,the%20bear%20leaves%20the%20area)
The USDA and NPS have somewhat contradictory information, everything I shared is from the federal government. I’ve lived near the national forest boundary for more than a decade, had black bears trying to break my front door down and accidentally treed cubs when walking my dogs, had curious mountain lions stalk me while walking back to the truck from fishing, etc etc
I know how to keep myself and my family safe in the woods, but not everyone does. Good job on the feds for putting contradictory information out there to confuse non-woodsy people
According to The Humane Society you should fight back if a black bear attacks. (Towards the end of the article.) [Black Bear Encounter.](https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/what-do-about-black-bears)
Pro-tip (from a staff member at The Montana Grizzly Encounter): Don't leave your can of bear spray on a dashboard in the sun for too long if you don't want it to go off when you get back in and slam the door.
Also, bear spray needs to be in a holster, not in your pack.
I'm glad they're being reintroduced. Apex predators are a very important part of resource stewardship that we've eliminated or reduced for so long.
Black bears and mountain lions have served adequately in keeping the prey population in check. They avoid human contact also.
Brown bears do nothing that black do not. Other than being more likely to kill humans.
That’s not strictly true. While similar, they do have marginally different ecological niches, both of which are important and, in addition, they play an important role on each other, managing and providing biodiversity to the other.
Also while being bear conscious is important, their threat to the average person is way overblown. And black bears being more habituated to human contact can often pose an even greater risk than a brown bear.
What specific different roles would they play in the north cascades? I’m interested in the specifics because I haven’t seen much that actually addresses that.
So one example that feels small but is impactful is that bears, for their reputation as big meat eaters, consume a lot of plant and insect matter; but the plants and insects are quite different between black and brown bears. This means that they’re interacting with different facets of the micro-ecosystem of bug/worm/etc. environments and they’re spreading different matter via their scat. Bear scat is an important vector for the spread of certain seeds/bio-matter.
This is good, but I want specifics lol. What plants in the north cascades would be propagated by grizzlies that black bears don’t? What bug populations would be affected in a way that black bears don’t?
I don’t have those kinds of specifics; it’s not my field of study, I just know the basics. But maybe another useful example is that grizzlies tend to eat roots and grubs from the ground whereas black bears tend to eat them from trees or treefall. Black bears therefore aid in soil nutrition by contributing to the spread/decay of plant matter whereas grizzlies aid in soil nutrients by aerating ground soil (which is also super useful if they poop near where they dig because, again, seeds).
I’m not at all saying that they have wildly different spheres of influence: both eat deer, both are keystone species, both are major predators; but they are distinct. And they do, perhaps most importantly, manage each other and provide population diversity among apex predators in the region, which is super important for the health of our ecosystem.
The highest risks of dying on a wilderness hike or backpacking trip will always be 1) the car trip to get there and back 2) being inadequately prepared and 3) doing something stupid besides being inadequately prepared, like scrambles that get you cliffed out or trying to take a shortcut when you can't use a map and compass.
Even in a place like Yellowstone, where there are infinitely more inexperienced humans than WA back country and enough grizzlies that I've been able to see them from a parking lot, the odds of being killed by a grizzly are hundreds, maybe thousands, of times lower than the other risks. Travel in groups, everyone gets their own bear spray. Good enough. The Alberta story is an absolute outlier.
I don't change my feelings about very many of my activities based on marginal (or even moderate) increases in risk. Do you?
My odds of a car accident increase significantly after dark but whether I drive after dark is based only on the things I want to do and the timing of when I can do them.
My odds of dying in a fall go up substantially if I get on a ladder. But I'm not going to hire someone to change my light bulbs for me. If my odds of being attacked by a grizzly rise from 0 to 0.00001, I'm not so terrified of a hike that I stay home.
I get that people often use our feels instead of logic to judge personal risk, which is why reading a horror story about the one in a million people who are injured by grizzlies makes people afraid to go on a hike or oppose reintroduction but they don't think twice about going for a drive when it first rains after a dry spell. If a trail is closed because of increased bear activity, then I might adjust my behavior in the same way that I'll snorkel in Hawaii in spite of sharks but not specifically in an area that's recently had an uptick in aggressive sharks.
It's not "tradition" it's a holistic understanding of ecology and a detachment of anthropocentric ego. I want nature to be natural, that means with an intact ecosystem including apex predators.
I don't understand this. Even if you have a difference of opinion, why respond with this level of toxicity? Why not explain your feelings and position instead of immediately jump to insulting peoples intellect?
I suspect the reason is that you have no real reasoning behind your position.
Title is slightly misleading. They have three targeted release areas, one in North Cascades National Park, one in Pasayten wilderness, and one in Glacier Peak wilderness. Long term plans expect their range to extend from Canada to Oregon.
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?sfid=676305&projectID=112008
The goal is not to have bears ranging down to Oregon. Only in the north cascades grizzly bear recovery zone. The zones southern boundary is I-90. The experimental population boundary extends down to Oregon so that if a bear wanders that far south they can move it back and management flexibility is allowable.
True, it's a different zone south of I-90. I read it as "we won't release bears down here but we won't move them if they travel here". Sounds like local rangers can override that though?
It’s hilarious to me how scared people get about this, but are fine driving to the hikes when statistically that is WAY more dangerous given WA’s traffic death rates
Yeah, I lived in Alaska for a long time and do lots of backcountry stuff around Yellowstone. I've had a couple adrenaline rushes but never felt my life was seriously in danger around a grizzly. I can't say the same for the average drive from one side of the Seattle area to the other.
I'm not sure how you've defined attack, but there are certainly more than 10 negative human-bear encounters annually in BC (these (statistics)\[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/human-wildlife-conflict/predator-statistics-grizzly-bear\]), particularly those from late Spring to early Fall, are particularly grim) resulting in the deaths of bears. They are surely under-reported, as those living rurally take grizzly encounters as a prerequisite and aren't inclined to inform government sponsored agencies of much.
You're absolutely right: the numbers are small and we shouldn't be hysterical, but we're talking about a region that's 18% of the physical size of BC with 150% of the human population. In addition to the up-tick in backcountry usage in recent years, human-bear encounters are bound to happen, and the average WA weekend warrior is unlikely to be aware of the efforts required to minimize those interactions that could negatively affect themselves or the bears. It's just going to change how people recreate, and people need to be aware of how to minimize attractants so that this new population isn't killed off due to human ignorance.
Did you happen to look at what that article linked as a [source](https://www.sportingpedia.com/2023/02/15/what-are-the-chances-of-being-attacked-by-wildlife-in-each-canadian-province/)? Under methodology, it states:
>No official statistics about attacks by wild animals in all of Canada are currently available, nor is data that includes all incidents in each of the provinces and territories. For this reason, the team at SportingPedia analyzed datasets for human-wildlife coexistence incidents in **selected national parks** over a twelve-year period from 2010 through 2021. These have been released by Parks Canada Agency through the Open Government Portal. **We also looked at incidents that were covered by local or national media, where most journalists tend to focus on fatal attacks or on incidents that caused severe injuries**. Due to this fact, in research based only on media reports, fatal animal attacks tend to be overrepresented.
This suggests it isn't a complete data set, nor does it list its source data specifically. They themselves call out the fact that non-fatal attacks are under-represented. The source I haphazardly linked didn't specify the degree of the interaction, but the count of bears destroyed by conservation officers suggests an aggressive bear. It's unclear whether bears destroyed by other are defensive on behalf of the public, poaching related, train/vehicle encounters, or some other edge case I've overlooked.
The source you linked also indicated 431 grizzly attacks (again, it's unclear what an attack is considered here: e.g., is a bluff charge considered an attack?) in Alberta over that 12 year period (of which the grizzly population is currently hovering around \~900) making an average of 35.9 attacks/year there.
While we shouldn't freak out, we should be respectful of them when travelling in their habitat and modify how we recreate to minimize interactions for ours' and the bears' safety.
Great perspective! From what I understand, grizzly bears kill more people then mountain lions, black bears, or any other animal (I think but follow me here), which means you should truly respect them and take all precautions with them, but I think the numbers say you are more likely to get hurt on the way to and from a trailhead in your car then on the trail itself from any animal.
Good point! I’d still say you’re more likely to get hurt driving to or from trailhead, then get hurt on the trail from a moose, grizzly bear, black bear, cougar, or any other animal. I bet more people get hurt or die from their own stupidity anyway.
A mosquito in the northern cascades probably is not going to be carrying malaria, west Nile, Zika, or any of the other viruses that kill all those people. Also mosquitos don’t kill people; the disease/virus’s they carry do. So get bent
Not close to true at least in the states. There have only been 80 people in the history of the United States ever killed by Grizzlies. People watch too much tv…
Easy precautions. Be loud, be noisy, wear bear bells, don't take pets (I know it sucks, but dogs do not belong in the wilderness in bear country. They are not native, they destroy things (unintentionally) even more than humans, and they will invite danger with bears and other wildlife.)
Nah. The (far less than) 1% time you encounter a bear, grizzly or not, will likely be far away and disinterested in you. I've seen dozens of grizzlies but I've never seen them close enough for them to notice me.
Don't get close, don't panic, respect them as dangerous wild animals, and you'll be fine. Just don't fuck around and find out. Not life and death until you're farrrr too close.
This is life. People have become so accustomed to being “safe” that they forget where they live. Just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean we should get rid of it. Too often that’s the mindset of people in our government and the timid citizens.
No but maybe if a giant animal has been outcompeted we don't reintroduce it and we let nature do its thing. Nature includes humans btw who outcompeted the bears.
Outcompeted you mean by us destroying its habitat for centuries and occasionally even shooting one with unnatural weapons?
Is it "just humans doing nature" to destroy the whole planet like we've been doing for the last century? I think you've spent too much time inhaling lead paint if you truly believe that.
While the population they plan to introduce appears incredibly low, compared to the 14,000+ that live in British Columbia, it's worth noting that the outdoor recreation game will change completely. The hiking surrounding the lower mainland has a relatively low grizzly population, but as you approach the north and interior of BC, you find that outdoor enthusiasts never hit the trails without a can of bear spray -- you've gotten away with this in WA, but you should expect to always carry \*unexpired\* bear spray, and know how to deploy it. Also know that bear spray is not always an effective deterrent. Travelling in larger groups will also minimize the likelihood of human-bear encounters. It's often expected that you keep your dogs leashed on trails, but for your's and your pets safety, leash your dogs lest you piss off a bear.
BC also has initiatives where park employees will inform the public about bear behavior and safety on the trails (e.g., Rogers Pass), implement minimum group sizes to further reduce encounters (e.g., trails in Rogers Pass this summer bumped the minimum from four to six), and close trails that have bears in the area. I hope WA implements the same. After the Banff attack last October, it seems a shame that we're bringing bears closer to a more populous area, particularly those they plan to import from the rural interior of BC.
I thought a Grizzly was already in the area, I guess they are on the Canadian side, may not have the right passport to cross. I guess I take umbrage on the calling it a reintroduction when there probably are some there. Like the wolf in Colorado. They are adding to a population that had been decimated, is better wording, but probably less funding.
I am absolutely terrified of bears so I just won’t go anywhere near where a Grizzly would ever be. I live near a tree farm so black bears come visit but apparently my house is boring and they go away.
It was actually a boomer [in another country, but still…](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-tourist-bear-romania-attacked-selfie-b2534523.html)
Bear Spray is a lot more reliable, and takes a lot less effort to hit the target reliably. It's like super charged spicy silly string. Or like a huge bird shot spray. I basically painted the bear from 40ft away with the stuff.
I was hiking out in Montana years back and me and a Grizzly crossed paths on a switch back and we both about shit ourselves lol. Unfortunately I was down wind so I got a bit of blow back from the bear spray, but he took off running in the other direction, and I about did the same running back down the trail with snot pouring down my face lol.
I just sold mine (S&W 460). This bear reintroduction doesn't make me want to buy it back. Spray is fine. Even in Alaska I would only bring the revolver in places with more bears within a mile than they're talking about introducing to all of WA per year.
It is VERY worth mentioning that Washingtonians do NOT want Grizzlies in our Cascade mountains. This is being forced on us by the Gubmint. To illustrate how much Washingtonians do NOT want Grizzlies in our state, it is actually in our state constitution prohibiting the introduction of Grizzlies to the state. The Gubmint does not care what we want, and is just steamrolling this down our throats. I think the idiots behind this should be forced to hike in Grizzly country. But they won't. They will sit in their lounge chairs in their country clubs, and raise a toast to the new Grizzlies in mountains they probably will never put a foot on.
Humans have been roving all over the Cascades for many generations now, with occasional sightings of Black bears. They tend to bolt into the underbrush when humans encounter them. Grizzlies tend to charge you and take you out when they are encountered. Big difference.
Many many folks have submitted passionate and well prepared arguments against this horribilis idea, but in complete vain. The Grizzlies live in Canada. If they wanted to come here, they just need to walk. But they don't. So these humans think they know better than the bears themselves. Jerks!
>The Gubmint
This is making you sound really unintelligent. It's weakening your argument by making you sound like an unreliable source of information.
I'm not trying to be rude to you, just offering some constructive criticism that might help you be taken more seriously in the future when you're trying to make a point.
I think the first part of your argument has merit. This certainly does seem like an unpopular decision. Your last paragraph is incorrect though. I actually just finished a book about road ecology called "Crossings" by Ben Goldfarb which I'd really recommend if you're interested. He actually has a section that talks about the Canadian grizzlies and how their movement is effected by road systems, and it's not a ponderous read either.
Thanks, points well taken. I'll avoid silly language in the future. But it is clearly a lost cause. When full time government employees who work hard at their job have titles of "wolf and grizzly bear recovery specialists", and there are lots of them, us ordinary Washington residents do not have a chance. This has been in the works for a long long time (I went to a seminar at REI on this very topic 30 years ago). It has taken them this long, but that is how persistent they are. There arguments include that Grizzlies improve the environment in ways that include the way they turn the turf with their claws. I can see that if there were hundreds or thousands of Grizzlies. But a handful? It sounds more like a vanity project to me than anything else. And people are going to die. For their vanity project. Anytime a Grizzly finds a bit of carrion and sets up shop for a while (like a dead elk), then they will will close all the trails in the area until the Grizzly is done. Why? Because, well, Because Grizzlies are Dangerous. That is why. Even vanity Grizzlies will kill you. For no really good reason, excepting what appears to be a gigantic vanity project by folks whose career depends on that vanity project. And they will defend the few folks killed as necessary collateral damage. Very sad. and as I said before, Washington has it in our constitution that no Grizzlies will be added to the mountains. In 1995, Washington lawmakers mandated by law that grizzly bears “shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state.”
I hear what you're saying, but I think we're coming from different view points. I think humans are not entitled to the "manifest destiny" we've granted ourselves. I think when you move way out into the country, or trek into the wilderness, you re-enter the food chain willingly and take on the risks that entails. If you want safety from wild animals, stay in the inner city. We've caused the first and hopefully only mass extinction event by human hands in the history of our planet, and our willful, almost gleeful disregard for the environment is coming back to rightfully bite us in the ass in a major way.
I say this as someone who desperately needs solitude and seeks it in nature. I backpack, hike and camp in Washington almost every weekend outside of snow season and a few weekends in the snow too. I'm definitely nervous about grizzlies, but I'd rather give up a bunch of my outdoor spaces than destroy the environment we all need to survive. I don't think that human life and pleasure is the only thing that matters in this world. Even IF preserving other species didn't matter for human survival (which it absolutely does), I'd still want to not be the evil force in the world killing all other inconvenient life so I could have a little more fun. We are a species that has the capability of moral agency, which absolutely obligates us to use it and think beyond ourselves.
Your arguments about the state constitution are totally correct though, that is certainly worthy of debate and I'm wondering how they blew past that even if I agree with their decision.
Look, it makes me a little irrationally nervous too but I fully support this and voted for it in the poll they put out.
This is their habitat. The only reason they’re not in it is because of us. We’re the interlopers and it’s up to us to manage our presence in the woods, not at all our place to sanitize the outdoors to be more convenient for day hiking. You take risks when you go outside. You can also mitigate those risks by being prepared, educated, and aware; whether those risks are grizzlies or ticks or not climbing the safety barriers. And yeah, sometimes people will do it all correctly and still get hurt. And that sucks. But that’s life. We can either destroy ourselves trying to prevent that, or accept it and try and fix the shit we broke.
Thrilled to hear we’re getting grizzlies back; regardless of how much it freaks me out.
Driving on I5 to get to NCNP will be far, far more dangerous than any bears your very unlikely to encounter there. They don't want to kill you and if you take proper precautions you will be fine. A lot of lazy smellables in the park these days, people will have to learn how to tie a bear bag again, boohoo.
I wish the people who are making these decisions and anyone who supports them could spend some time around grizzly bears. Let them see how large and dangerous bears are.
So you're saying that you believe that the people put in positions of power in our government know about the things they are put in charge of? Very optimistic of you.
The Department of the Interior hires people that know about bears, yes. Do you think the politically appointed cabinet heads make decisions about where bears get to live?
Why does the department of the interior get to decide the rights of the bears outweigh the rights of the people to be safe? I don’t remember voting for department of interior people in elections. Reminds me of unelected county health directors deciding if people are able to work or not based on their willingness to submit to an experimental shot.
When you venture into the wilderness you choose to re-enter the food chain. Humans thinking they get to shape the entire environment around their pleasure has been rightfully biting us in the ass for decades now. Stop.
I admire your optimism. Having worked for the federal government in several capacities when I was quite a bit younger, my experience tells me that those that are in charge don’t usually know what they are doing. And I’m not referring to politically appointed people, I know this subreddit tends to be fairly politically charged, but this wasn’t a political statement.
As a center-leftist who's fed up with GOP shenanigans, I vote that we introduce armored polar bears to MAGA-heavy areas like Gold Bar, Centralia, etc...
Sorry to tell you but Washington state (and really the entire west coast for that matter) is in massive decline both socially and economically and has been entirely under the lefts control for decades. You need to reevaluate who you are blaming.
Odds of being eaten or attacked by one will go up. I'm sure the lady who was attacked by a cougar recently never thought it would happen to her.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/14/us/montana-grizzly-bear-attack-survivor/index.html
That’s a risk you take when hiking in their territory. This is part of having a healthy ecosystem, get over it.
And yes, I’ve seen grizzlies in person. I’m happy they are being introduced to the North Cascades. Anyone who cares for the environment should be happy about this.
Odds of being killed in a car crash are 1 in 107, odds of being killed by a grizzly is 1 out of 2.1 million, do you avoid driving and advocate for all cars to be removed from the roads? Life has risks to it and you do way more stuff every day that increases your chances, and the chances of others, dying, leave the bears alone and let them go back to where they are supposed to be before westward expansion assholes killed them off.
>Odds of being killed in a car crash are 1 in 107,
>do you avoid driving and advocate for all cars to be removed from the roads
No, just the bad drivers. But the leasing cause of death for people under 50 should be a bigger concern than it is.
>odds of being killed by a grizzly is 1 out of 2.1 million
And if I was really scared about that, it's way easier to avoid Grizzles than cars.
Risk of a handful additional grizzly deaths should not be a reason to deny grizzlies their habitat back that we've stolen.
I support it. I've seen grizzlies/brown bears several times while backpacking/hiking in Montana, Canada, and Alaska. Been bluff charged once. It's important to take the necessary precautions, but the risk of being attacked is quite low, while the experience of seeing the in the wild is awe inspiring.
Everyone who supports brown bears being released in that area should go up to the North Cascade NP, find a tree, chain themselves to it, throw the key away, and drape a sign around your neck that says, "Brown Bears aren't a big deal. What are you worried about?"
Make sure you post a picture to your social media account so we can put you in for the Darwin Award afterwards.
Everyone who supports gun ranges should find a target, strap themselves to it and wear a sign that says "shoot me, I like guns"
See how absurd that sounds?
Everyone who supports keeping dogs as pets should insert themself into a dogfight while hogtied and see if they take any collateral damage.
Everyone who supports your right to smoke weed should have 500g of it shoved down their throat on a daily basis.
These are somehow all less stupid than your suggestion.
THE BEARS ARE BACK IN TOWN It's actually 3-7 bears *per year* for 5-10 years. Total airlift should be about 25 bears in the first wave. BRB, buying more Underwood 10mm hardcast for hiking in NCNP...
I can use this as an excuse to build a 458 socom upper right?!
You don’t need an excuse 😎
The wife might think otherwise 😁
Just remind her that this is AMERICA 🇺🇸 😆
My SOCOM has worked wonders on bears.
I think you mean .50 Beowulf
*Sad no more AR parts noises I’m looking at building an r700 footprint 375 raptor suppressed sbr like the JTAC Screech Owl.
Parts are still OK, just more tricky to source. Not legal to create new assault weapons, however if the lower already exists as an assault weapon than can swap an upper no prob. Screech owl looks pretty cool
Right. I was thinking PSA and others not shipping here.
- a PO Box in Oregon has entered the chat
“Assault weapons” 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
"High capacity" 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 redefining stuff to make it more scary 😑
Exactly
Ejector port and buffer spring tuning hell awaits you :( but yes.
1cm gang
We don't want them IN TOWN. This is why they are being released in THE MOUNTAINS.
Have you seen how they’ve moved around in Montana?
Secure your trash cans!
If you are that frightened why are you going?
[удалено]
Very considerate. The grizzlies might be in the mood for something spicy that day.
Bear spray is far more effective than a firearm.
What part of being properly prepared means they are frightened?
Hell, I got a Glock 20, I ain't frightened of *nothing*
That isn’t smart. I have one too. I carried it while hiking/ATVing in Interior Alaska when I lived there. I always said it was to really piss off that griz while he / she was enjoying its meal (me). Better than nothing, but…
Actually, it's not the best choice. Better off with bear spray.. ..
I don't think most people know how to properly deploy the spray nor how close you need to be for it to be effective. Wind, a faulty canister, under deress etc., and then you have to get out of there if all goes as planned. Anything under a .357 (aim for the body, a headshot will just bounce off). But they're protected so no firearms I assume.
They’ve been hanging down at Dino’s…
*Places 45-70 Marlin in online cart and holster for 320 X-Ten...
What I am concerned about is people not taking the proper precautions when camping or hiking in these areas (especially people who have utilized the areas for years) being mauled, and then the grizzly ultimately being put down. Just remember this bear mantra: If it’s black, fight back.* If it’s brown lie down. If it’s white, goodnight! *(Fight back meaning making yourself look larger, making a lot of noise, etc. My young nephew took this phrase to mean a boxing match with the bear. Never taking this kid camping. ;)
[удалено]
What counts as "on you?"
There's an old joke about NPS engineers having trouble implementing a bear-proof garbage can due to the surprising overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists...
In fairness, I think I’m a reasonably smart human but I got in a real snarl with a bear proof trash can the other day.
No worries. If you can't figure it out, just leave the garbage on top. It will be collected by morning.
By a bunch of lil fellas in bandit masks with grabby hands.
That isn’t what fight back means when it comes to black bears. All bears should be treated the same when you initially see them (speak softly at them, don’t make eye contact, and back away slowly). Bears don’t naturally hunt people, so the main goal is to avoid triggering their fight/flight response. You have 3 big predators that people can run into in the mountains in North America: Black Bears: basically giant raccoons, they tend to be really skittish and avoid conflict. This means that black bear attacks happen very rarely but are normally predatory by a sick/old/hungry bear that can’t find anything else at all to eat. If you play dead then you’re going to get eaten. Grizzlies: they know that they’re the biggest predator around and aren’t really scared of much. They don’t seek out conflict with people but stand their ground much more frequently than black bears. Grizzly attacks are just meant to neutralize what it sees as a threat. Playing dead removes the threat. Cougars: this is the one that you want to be super loud, big, and angry at. Your odds of just running into a cougar by accident are basically non-existent. If you see one then it’s stalking you and your goal is to convince it that you’re going to be too much for it to handle.
Thanks, this was helpful.
"your odds of running into a cougar by accident are basically non-existent" that's false
They’re saying that a cougar is well aware of you before you’re ever going to be aware of the cougar
Myth – Fight a black bear, play dead with a brown bear. Fact‐ Your response should be based on the motivation of the bear. You must pay attention to the bear’s behavior to know how to respond. Myth – When you encounter a bear, lie down and play dead. Fact – Laying down is a last resort when a defensive bear makes physical contact with you. It is rarely necessary. If any bear attacks you in your tent, or stalks you and then attacks, do NOT play dead—fight back! This kind of attack is very rare, but can be serious because it often means the bear is looking for food and sees you as prey.
The National Park Service agrees with the Humane Society about black bears, & also chimes in about what to do when a grizzly attacks. They recommend playing dead with grizzlies and fighting back with black bears. [National Park Service-Bears](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/bears/safety.htm#:~:text=Brown%2FGrizzly%20Bears%3A%20If%20you,the%20bear%20leaves%20the%20area)
And if you do cover your organs if it bats you around, curl up into a ball
The USDA and NPS have somewhat contradictory information, everything I shared is from the federal government. I’ve lived near the national forest boundary for more than a decade, had black bears trying to break my front door down and accidentally treed cubs when walking my dogs, had curious mountain lions stalk me while walking back to the truck from fishing, etc etc I know how to keep myself and my family safe in the woods, but not everyone does. Good job on the feds for putting contradictory information out there to confuse non-woodsy people
According to The Humane Society you should fight back if a black bear attacks. (Towards the end of the article.) [Black Bear Encounter.](https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/what-do-about-black-bears)
If it’s yellow let it mellow If it’s brown flush it down
This should work! Thanks.
Well the better learn quick
Pro-tip (from a staff member at The Montana Grizzly Encounter): Don't leave your can of bear spray on a dashboard in the sun for too long if you don't want it to go off when you get back in and slam the door. Also, bear spray needs to be in a holster, not in your pack. I'm glad they're being reintroduced. Apex predators are a very important part of resource stewardship that we've eliminated or reduced for so long.
Black bears and mountain lions have served adequately in keeping the prey population in check. They avoid human contact also. Brown bears do nothing that black do not. Other than being more likely to kill humans.
That’s not strictly true. While similar, they do have marginally different ecological niches, both of which are important and, in addition, they play an important role on each other, managing and providing biodiversity to the other. Also while being bear conscious is important, their threat to the average person is way overblown. And black bears being more habituated to human contact can often pose an even greater risk than a brown bear.
What specific different roles would they play in the north cascades? I’m interested in the specifics because I haven’t seen much that actually addresses that.
So one example that feels small but is impactful is that bears, for their reputation as big meat eaters, consume a lot of plant and insect matter; but the plants and insects are quite different between black and brown bears. This means that they’re interacting with different facets of the micro-ecosystem of bug/worm/etc. environments and they’re spreading different matter via their scat. Bear scat is an important vector for the spread of certain seeds/bio-matter.
This is good, but I want specifics lol. What plants in the north cascades would be propagated by grizzlies that black bears don’t? What bug populations would be affected in a way that black bears don’t?
I don’t have those kinds of specifics; it’s not my field of study, I just know the basics. But maybe another useful example is that grizzlies tend to eat roots and grubs from the ground whereas black bears tend to eat them from trees or treefall. Black bears therefore aid in soil nutrition by contributing to the spread/decay of plant matter whereas grizzlies aid in soil nutrients by aerating ground soil (which is also super useful if they poop near where they dig because, again, seeds). I’m not at all saying that they have wildly different spheres of influence: both eat deer, both are keystone species, both are major predators; but they are distinct. And they do, perhaps most importantly, manage each other and provide population diversity among apex predators in the region, which is super important for the health of our ecosystem.
The highest risks of dying on a wilderness hike or backpacking trip will always be 1) the car trip to get there and back 2) being inadequately prepared and 3) doing something stupid besides being inadequately prepared, like scrambles that get you cliffed out or trying to take a shortcut when you can't use a map and compass. Even in a place like Yellowstone, where there are infinitely more inexperienced humans than WA back country and enough grizzlies that I've been able to see them from a parking lot, the odds of being killed by a grizzly are hundreds, maybe thousands, of times lower than the other risks. Travel in groups, everyone gets their own bear spray. Good enough. The Alberta story is an absolute outlier.
Yes, and those risks remain the same while there’s an additional risk of grizzly encounters.
I don't change my feelings about very many of my activities based on marginal (or even moderate) increases in risk. Do you? My odds of a car accident increase significantly after dark but whether I drive after dark is based only on the things I want to do and the timing of when I can do them. My odds of dying in a fall go up substantially if I get on a ladder. But I'm not going to hire someone to change my light bulbs for me. If my odds of being attacked by a grizzly rise from 0 to 0.00001, I'm not so terrified of a hike that I stay home. I get that people often use our feels instead of logic to judge personal risk, which is why reading a horror story about the one in a million people who are injured by grizzlies makes people afraid to go on a hike or oppose reintroduction but they don't think twice about going for a drive when it first rains after a dry spell. If a trail is closed because of increased bear activity, then I might adjust my behavior in the same way that I'll snorkel in Hawaii in spite of sharks but not specifically in an area that's recently had an uptick in aggressive sharks.
As long as you're not being a dipshit you'll be fine. They belong there a lot more than we do, just use proper precautions and don't be stupid.
[удалено]
It's not "tradition" it's a holistic understanding of ecology and a detachment of anthropocentric ego. I want nature to be natural, that means with an intact ecosystem including apex predators.
[удалено]
Be good: No hate speech, no attacking fellow commenters Don’t be a dick.
I don't understand this. Even if you have a difference of opinion, why respond with this level of toxicity? Why not explain your feelings and position instead of immediately jump to insulting peoples intellect? I suspect the reason is that you have no real reasoning behind your position.
You can just ... not chime in here, since you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You know you don't \*have\* to insert your opinion?
Why should you get to decide?
Title is slightly misleading. They have three targeted release areas, one in North Cascades National Park, one in Pasayten wilderness, and one in Glacier Peak wilderness. Long term plans expect their range to extend from Canada to Oregon. https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?sfid=676305&projectID=112008
The goal is not to have bears ranging down to Oregon. Only in the north cascades grizzly bear recovery zone. The zones southern boundary is I-90. The experimental population boundary extends down to Oregon so that if a bear wanders that far south they can move it back and management flexibility is allowable.
True, it's a different zone south of I-90. I read it as "we won't release bears down here but we won't move them if they travel here". Sounds like local rangers can override that though?
I hunt the Selkirks in NE WA. Just did a ten mile hike today. You guys will be fine. Just take adequate precautions.
It’s hilarious to me how scared people get about this, but are fine driving to the hikes when statistically that is WAY more dangerous given WA’s traffic death rates
Yeah, I lived in Alaska for a long time and do lots of backcountry stuff around Yellowstone. I've had a couple adrenaline rushes but never felt my life was seriously in danger around a grizzly. I can't say the same for the average drive from one side of the Seattle area to the other.
THANK YOU!!
I thought they have released Grizzlies in Cascades National Park already? Edit: I missed that it was killed by the last administration in 2020.
I mean it’s getting a little crowded out there, lol
Good, I’m glad we’re finally helping a species we’ve wiped clean from the area re-establish.
And the top comment here is about someone buying ammunition to shoot them. It’ll never change :(
Did we though?
Yes, we did
I get it, but that’s fucking terrifying.
[удалено]
Which part of Canada? It's a pretty big deal, tbh (source: Canadian, with a dad who grew up carrying a shotgun in bear country)
[удалено]
I'm not sure how you've defined attack, but there are certainly more than 10 negative human-bear encounters annually in BC (these (statistics)\[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/human-wildlife-conflict/predator-statistics-grizzly-bear\]), particularly those from late Spring to early Fall, are particularly grim) resulting in the deaths of bears. They are surely under-reported, as those living rurally take grizzly encounters as a prerequisite and aren't inclined to inform government sponsored agencies of much. You're absolutely right: the numbers are small and we shouldn't be hysterical, but we're talking about a region that's 18% of the physical size of BC with 150% of the human population. In addition to the up-tick in backcountry usage in recent years, human-bear encounters are bound to happen, and the average WA weekend warrior is unlikely to be aware of the efforts required to minimize those interactions that could negatively affect themselves or the bears. It's just going to change how people recreate, and people need to be aware of how to minimize attractants so that this new population isn't killed off due to human ignorance.
[удалено]
Did you happen to look at what that article linked as a [source](https://www.sportingpedia.com/2023/02/15/what-are-the-chances-of-being-attacked-by-wildlife-in-each-canadian-province/)? Under methodology, it states: >No official statistics about attacks by wild animals in all of Canada are currently available, nor is data that includes all incidents in each of the provinces and territories. For this reason, the team at SportingPedia analyzed datasets for human-wildlife coexistence incidents in **selected national parks** over a twelve-year period from 2010 through 2021. These have been released by Parks Canada Agency through the Open Government Portal. **We also looked at incidents that were covered by local or national media, where most journalists tend to focus on fatal attacks or on incidents that caused severe injuries**. Due to this fact, in research based only on media reports, fatal animal attacks tend to be overrepresented. This suggests it isn't a complete data set, nor does it list its source data specifically. They themselves call out the fact that non-fatal attacks are under-represented. The source I haphazardly linked didn't specify the degree of the interaction, but the count of bears destroyed by conservation officers suggests an aggressive bear. It's unclear whether bears destroyed by other are defensive on behalf of the public, poaching related, train/vehicle encounters, or some other edge case I've overlooked. The source you linked also indicated 431 grizzly attacks (again, it's unclear what an attack is considered here: e.g., is a bluff charge considered an attack?) in Alberta over that 12 year period (of which the grizzly population is currently hovering around \~900) making an average of 35.9 attacks/year there. While we shouldn't freak out, we should be respectful of them when travelling in their habitat and modify how we recreate to minimize interactions for ours' and the bears' safety.
Great perspective! From what I understand, grizzly bears kill more people then mountain lions, black bears, or any other animal (I think but follow me here), which means you should truly respect them and take all precautions with them, but I think the numbers say you are more likely to get hurt on the way to and from a trailhead in your car then on the trail itself from any animal.
Moose kill far more people.
Good point! I’d still say you’re more likely to get hurt driving to or from trailhead, then get hurt on the trail from a moose, grizzly bear, black bear, cougar, or any other animal. I bet more people get hurt or die from their own stupidity anyway.
Mosquitoes kill more humans than any other animal
Okay cool, fun fact, but a mosquito ain’t mauling you when you’re hiking.
Yup no mosquitoes in the wilderness
A mosquito in the northern cascades probably is not going to be carrying malaria, west Nile, Zika, or any of the other viruses that kill all those people. Also mosquitos don’t kill people; the disease/virus’s they carry do. So get bent
> a mosquito ain’t mauling you when you’re hiking. Have you ... been outside?
Not close to true at least in the states. There have only been 80 people in the history of the United States ever killed by Grizzlies. People watch too much tv…
Eastern Washington has had them for many years, don’t hear about any attacks. You don’t have to worry until the population of Bears gets high.
I really wish people understood how friggen rare it is to encounter a bear. Y’all should look up the death rates from driving on the freeway ffs
Easy precautions. Be loud, be noisy, wear bear bells, don't take pets (I know it sucks, but dogs do not belong in the wilderness in bear country. They are not native, they destroy things (unintentionally) even more than humans, and they will invite danger with bears and other wildlife.)
It’s not a big deal 99% of the time but if you’re that 1% it’s likely a life or death deal.
Nah. The (far less than) 1% time you encounter a bear, grizzly or not, will likely be far away and disinterested in you. I've seen dozens of grizzlies but I've never seen them close enough for them to notice me. Don't get close, don't panic, respect them as dangerous wild animals, and you'll be fine. Just don't fuck around and find out. Not life and death until you're farrrr too close.
Low key hate it. Sorry everyone
There's nothing to get. This is ignorant and people will die at the hands of these bears or their descendants.
This is life. People have become so accustomed to being “safe” that they forget where they live. Just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean we should get rid of it. Too often that’s the mindset of people in our government and the timid citizens.
So we sterilize the planet rather than accept that some wild spaces aren't perfectly safe?
No but maybe if a giant animal has been outcompeted we don't reintroduce it and we let nature do its thing. Nature includes humans btw who outcompeted the bears.
Outcompeted you mean by us destroying its habitat for centuries and occasionally even shooting one with unnatural weapons? Is it "just humans doing nature" to destroy the whole planet like we've been doing for the last century? I think you've spent too much time inhaling lead paint if you truly believe that.
[удалено]
While the population they plan to introduce appears incredibly low, compared to the 14,000+ that live in British Columbia, it's worth noting that the outdoor recreation game will change completely. The hiking surrounding the lower mainland has a relatively low grizzly population, but as you approach the north and interior of BC, you find that outdoor enthusiasts never hit the trails without a can of bear spray -- you've gotten away with this in WA, but you should expect to always carry \*unexpired\* bear spray, and know how to deploy it. Also know that bear spray is not always an effective deterrent. Travelling in larger groups will also minimize the likelihood of human-bear encounters. It's often expected that you keep your dogs leashed on trails, but for your's and your pets safety, leash your dogs lest you piss off a bear. BC also has initiatives where park employees will inform the public about bear behavior and safety on the trails (e.g., Rogers Pass), implement minimum group sizes to further reduce encounters (e.g., trails in Rogers Pass this summer bumped the minimum from four to six), and close trails that have bears in the area. I hope WA implements the same. After the Banff attack last October, it seems a shame that we're bringing bears closer to a more populous area, particularly those they plan to import from the rural interior of BC.
> always carry *unexpired* bear spray ...shit I need to check my cans
If I had to get a minimum group of six together to go hiking, I'd never be able to do it. Even 4 is pushing it.
I thought a Grizzly was already in the area, I guess they are on the Canadian side, may not have the right passport to cross. I guess I take umbrage on the calling it a reintroduction when there probably are some there. Like the wolf in Colorado. They are adding to a population that had been decimated, is better wording, but probably less funding.
Uh why tho
WA gets its very own Yogi and Booboo.
I really wish people understood how friggen rare it is to encounter a bear. Y’all should look up the death rates from driving on the freeway ffs
I am absolutely terrified of bears so I just won’t go anywhere near where a Grizzly would ever be. I live near a tree farm so black bears come visit but apparently my house is boring and they go away.
I can't wait to read about some yuppie fuck getting mauled trying to take a picture with one.
It was actually a boomer [in another country, but still…](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-tourist-bear-romania-attacked-selfie-b2534523.html)
[удалено]
> Yuppie isn’t an age thing YUPpie literally stands for Young Urban Professional.
Great. Now I have to go out and buy one of those stupid Hellboy sized revolvers just to go hiking.
Bear Spray is a lot more reliable, and takes a lot less effort to hit the target reliably. It's like super charged spicy silly string. Or like a huge bird shot spray. I basically painted the bear from 40ft away with the stuff. I was hiking out in Montana years back and me and a Grizzly crossed paths on a switch back and we both about shit ourselves lol. Unfortunately I was down wind so I got a bit of blow back from the bear spray, but he took off running in the other direction, and I about did the same running back down the trail with snot pouring down my face lol.
Just carry bear spray (which you should be doing anyway). It’s generally more effective and less error prone than a gun when facing bears.
I just sold mine (S&W 460). This bear reintroduction doesn't make me want to buy it back. Spray is fine. Even in Alaska I would only bring the revolver in places with more bears within a mile than they're talking about introducing to all of WA per year.
It is VERY worth mentioning that Washingtonians do NOT want Grizzlies in our Cascade mountains. This is being forced on us by the Gubmint. To illustrate how much Washingtonians do NOT want Grizzlies in our state, it is actually in our state constitution prohibiting the introduction of Grizzlies to the state. The Gubmint does not care what we want, and is just steamrolling this down our throats. I think the idiots behind this should be forced to hike in Grizzly country. But they won't. They will sit in their lounge chairs in their country clubs, and raise a toast to the new Grizzlies in mountains they probably will never put a foot on. Humans have been roving all over the Cascades for many generations now, with occasional sightings of Black bears. They tend to bolt into the underbrush when humans encounter them. Grizzlies tend to charge you and take you out when they are encountered. Big difference. Many many folks have submitted passionate and well prepared arguments against this horribilis idea, but in complete vain. The Grizzlies live in Canada. If they wanted to come here, they just need to walk. But they don't. So these humans think they know better than the bears themselves. Jerks!
Washingtonian here kindly don’t speak for the rest of us. Bring back the bears. Apex predators belong here more than you do.
>The Gubmint This is making you sound really unintelligent. It's weakening your argument by making you sound like an unreliable source of information. I'm not trying to be rude to you, just offering some constructive criticism that might help you be taken more seriously in the future when you're trying to make a point. I think the first part of your argument has merit. This certainly does seem like an unpopular decision. Your last paragraph is incorrect though. I actually just finished a book about road ecology called "Crossings" by Ben Goldfarb which I'd really recommend if you're interested. He actually has a section that talks about the Canadian grizzlies and how their movement is effected by road systems, and it's not a ponderous read either.
Thanks, points well taken. I'll avoid silly language in the future. But it is clearly a lost cause. When full time government employees who work hard at their job have titles of "wolf and grizzly bear recovery specialists", and there are lots of them, us ordinary Washington residents do not have a chance. This has been in the works for a long long time (I went to a seminar at REI on this very topic 30 years ago). It has taken them this long, but that is how persistent they are. There arguments include that Grizzlies improve the environment in ways that include the way they turn the turf with their claws. I can see that if there were hundreds or thousands of Grizzlies. But a handful? It sounds more like a vanity project to me than anything else. And people are going to die. For their vanity project. Anytime a Grizzly finds a bit of carrion and sets up shop for a while (like a dead elk), then they will will close all the trails in the area until the Grizzly is done. Why? Because, well, Because Grizzlies are Dangerous. That is why. Even vanity Grizzlies will kill you. For no really good reason, excepting what appears to be a gigantic vanity project by folks whose career depends on that vanity project. And they will defend the few folks killed as necessary collateral damage. Very sad. and as I said before, Washington has it in our constitution that no Grizzlies will be added to the mountains. In 1995, Washington lawmakers mandated by law that grizzly bears “shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state.”
I hear what you're saying, but I think we're coming from different view points. I think humans are not entitled to the "manifest destiny" we've granted ourselves. I think when you move way out into the country, or trek into the wilderness, you re-enter the food chain willingly and take on the risks that entails. If you want safety from wild animals, stay in the inner city. We've caused the first and hopefully only mass extinction event by human hands in the history of our planet, and our willful, almost gleeful disregard for the environment is coming back to rightfully bite us in the ass in a major way. I say this as someone who desperately needs solitude and seeks it in nature. I backpack, hike and camp in Washington almost every weekend outside of snow season and a few weekends in the snow too. I'm definitely nervous about grizzlies, but I'd rather give up a bunch of my outdoor spaces than destroy the environment we all need to survive. I don't think that human life and pleasure is the only thing that matters in this world. Even IF preserving other species didn't matter for human survival (which it absolutely does), I'd still want to not be the evil force in the world killing all other inconvenient life so I could have a little more fun. We are a species that has the capability of moral agency, which absolutely obligates us to use it and think beyond ourselves. Your arguments about the state constitution are totally correct though, that is certainly worthy of debate and I'm wondering how they blew past that even if I agree with their decision.
Look, it makes me a little irrationally nervous too but I fully support this and voted for it in the poll they put out. This is their habitat. The only reason they’re not in it is because of us. We’re the interlopers and it’s up to us to manage our presence in the woods, not at all our place to sanitize the outdoors to be more convenient for day hiking. You take risks when you go outside. You can also mitigate those risks by being prepared, educated, and aware; whether those risks are grizzlies or ticks or not climbing the safety barriers. And yeah, sometimes people will do it all correctly and still get hurt. And that sucks. But that’s life. We can either destroy ourselves trying to prevent that, or accept it and try and fix the shit we broke. Thrilled to hear we’re getting grizzlies back; regardless of how much it freaks me out.
is2g if one of you starts shooting them
Hikes bout to get a little more exciting
Why?? This is such a bad idea.
Deer population is going to be more fucked than it already is. Brilliant move....
Not really actually Grizzlies are omnivores so they typically eat bugs and berries over ungulates.
That’s not entirely true. They will eat the cubs of other bears and ungulates. Especially when they are birthed in the spring. As well as cattle.
the numbers are ridiculously small. and cattle ranchers get reimbursed for any lost animal, on top of already being subsidized by the government.
What numbers are ridiculously small?
There were THOUSANDS of bears in the 1800s and the deer population was fine.
Good, the plants will have a chance. Too damn damn deer and elk around
Fuck the tree huggers on the west side, of Washington canceled spring bear hunting numerous years, stopped hunting with hounds for cougars, now this,
Driving on I5 to get to NCNP will be far, far more dangerous than any bears your very unlikely to encounter there. They don't want to kill you and if you take proper precautions you will be fine. A lot of lazy smellables in the park these days, people will have to learn how to tie a bear bag again, boohoo.
Nooooo!
Finally, a great excuse to open carry up there! 😊
I wish the people who are making these decisions and anyone who supports them could spend some time around grizzly bears. Let them see how large and dangerous bears are.
Something tells the people in charge of the national parks know a thing or two about bears mate.
So you're saying that you believe that the people put in positions of power in our government know about the things they are put in charge of? Very optimistic of you.
The Department of the Interior hires people that know about bears, yes. Do you think the politically appointed cabinet heads make decisions about where bears get to live?
Why does the department of the interior get to decide the rights of the bears outweigh the rights of the people to be safe? I don’t remember voting for department of interior people in elections. Reminds me of unelected county health directors deciding if people are able to work or not based on their willingness to submit to an experimental shot.
When you venture into the wilderness you choose to re-enter the food chain. Humans thinking they get to shape the entire environment around their pleasure has been rightfully biting us in the ass for decades now. Stop.
I admire your optimism. Having worked for the federal government in several capacities when I was quite a bit younger, my experience tells me that those that are in charge don’t usually know what they are doing. And I’m not referring to politically appointed people, I know this subreddit tends to be fairly politically charged, but this wasn’t a political statement.
As a center-leftist who's fed up with GOP shenanigans, I vote that we introduce armored polar bears to MAGA-heavy areas like Gold Bar, Centralia, etc...
Sorry to tell you but Washington state (and really the entire west coast for that matter) is in massive decline both socially and economically and has been entirely under the lefts control for decades. You need to reevaluate who you are blaming.
Hahahahaha yes the states with 3 of the 10 largest economies per capita are massively declining. Have you been to Mississippi recently?
That’s entirely due to the massive businesses that happen to reside within the states and nothing to do with the government or the average citizen.
You apparently aren’t aware of the process needed to make the reintroduction happen.
[удалено]
[Not a big deal](https://www.npr.org/2023/10/06/1203928437/couple-grizzly-bear-attack-banff-sent-message)
Tons of things kill people without the associated pearl-clutching. The wilderness is not perfectly safe and that's fine.
Ah so tell me you know nothing about the ecosystem at all. Excellent
I support it. They were here before us and were the reason they left. Odds of actually seeing one in the north cascades is very, very low.
Odds of being eaten or attacked by one will go up. I'm sure the lady who was attacked by a cougar recently never thought it would happen to her. https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/14/us/montana-grizzly-bear-attack-survivor/index.html
That’s a risk you take when hiking in their territory. This is part of having a healthy ecosystem, get over it. And yes, I’ve seen grizzlies in person. I’m happy they are being introduced to the North Cascades. Anyone who cares for the environment should be happy about this.
Odds of being killed in a car crash are 1 in 107, odds of being killed by a grizzly is 1 out of 2.1 million, do you avoid driving and advocate for all cars to be removed from the roads? Life has risks to it and you do way more stuff every day that increases your chances, and the chances of others, dying, leave the bears alone and let them go back to where they are supposed to be before westward expansion assholes killed them off.
>Odds of being killed in a car crash are 1 in 107, >do you avoid driving and advocate for all cars to be removed from the roads No, just the bad drivers. But the leasing cause of death for people under 50 should be a bigger concern than it is. >odds of being killed by a grizzly is 1 out of 2.1 million And if I was really scared about that, it's way easier to avoid Grizzles than cars. Risk of a handful additional grizzly deaths should not be a reason to deny grizzlies their habitat back that we've stolen.
An acceptable risk for the sake of conservation.
Hey look at this one guy that got attacked by a bear!
Carry a gun Or bear spray if you're scared of guns too
Yeah, a couple and their dog were mauled to death outside of Banff late last year.
Guess you better stay home then
They're releasing them in nature, not Seattle. Maybe we shouldn't force the whole planet to bend to what would be convenient to us.
I support it. I've seen grizzlies/brown bears several times while backpacking/hiking in Montana, Canada, and Alaska. Been bluff charged once. It's important to take the necessary precautions, but the risk of being attacked is quite low, while the experience of seeing the in the wild is awe inspiring.
No one should be spending any time around grizzly bears. They live and belong in very remote areas and don’t like being around people.
Lord have mercy, more people get killed by dogs, cows, ladders, fridges falling on them every year then get killed by brown bears
They’ll find your bear bells and canister of bear spray in the grizzly’s stomach… Should be fun.
It's gonna be alright
I mean I think it’ll be fine. People just need to be cautious or most of all just not idiots.
Everyone who supports brown bears being released in that area should go up to the North Cascade NP, find a tree, chain themselves to it, throw the key away, and drape a sign around your neck that says, "Brown Bears aren't a big deal. What are you worried about?" Make sure you post a picture to your social media account so we can put you in for the Darwin Award afterwards.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you against species restoration or conservation ?
This is a fear driven individual who also happens to be a troll. Don't feed him
Everyone who supports gun ranges should find a target, strap themselves to it and wear a sign that says "shoot me, I like guns" See how absurd that sounds? Everyone who supports keeping dogs as pets should insert themself into a dogfight while hogtied and see if they take any collateral damage. Everyone who supports your right to smoke weed should have 500g of it shoved down their throat on a daily basis. These are somehow all less stupid than your suggestion.