Article Grizzly Bears Reintroduced To Wa?

Red Arch

Active Member
#31
Why is it south of the 49th, anytime someone wants to bring back anything that was annihilated in the late 1800s/early 1900s a seemingly large amount of people lose there minds?

BTW best thing for bear defense is a 12 gauge with slugs. Don't bother with buckshot.

Assuming bear spray is out of the question of course
 
#32
Why is it south of the 49th, anytime someone wants to bring back anything that was annihilated in the late 1800s/early 1900s a seemingly large amount of people lose there minds?

BTW best thing for bear defense is a 12 gauge with slugs. Don't bother with buckshot.

Assuming bear spray is out of the question of course
Tell that to the guy in Montana who was attacked by a Grizzly right after he made a direct hit on it with a full charge of bear spray.
 

Krusty

Active Member
#34
Why is it south of the 49th, anytime someone wants to bring back anything that was annihilated in the late 1800s/early 1900s a seemingly large amount of people lose there minds?

BTW best thing for bear defense is a 12 gauge with slugs. Don't bother with buckshot.

Assuming bear spray is out of the question of course
Exactly....all the 'ruff tuff outdoorsmen' start acting like a bunch of nancies with their thongs in a wad.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#35
Actually the bigger question is why stop in WA? If the intent is to re-establish their historical range, there's lots of states that can share in the goodness.

20090516-grizzly-bear-range.jpg
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
#36
Why is it south of the 49th, anytime someone wants to bring back anything that was annihilated in the late 1800s/early 1900s a seemingly large amount of people lose there minds?

BTW best thing for bear defense is a 12 gauge with slugs. Don't bother with buckshot.

Assuming bear spray is out of the question of course
The best defense for the defenseless is to stay in Seattle. The wildernesses is no place for them to be wondering around. They should stick to the farmer's market and the water front.
 

Old Man

Just an Old Man
#37
When I head out to do some exploring I take notice where in the hell I'm at. I don't want to be wandering around the Gravelly Range and run into a grizzly up in there. They are up in there. I had a forest ranger tell me that.

Also I try to stay out of the bushy areas on some of the way hell and gone Skinny water. I heard some huffing on the upper Ruby River one time and just pulled up and left.

I like my hide just as it is. Not messed up.
 
#38
That's a great idea! Introduce potentially dangerous animals for the purpose of increased gun sales! Love it!
Increased gun sales is a good thing!
44 magnums are better for grizz defense.
I recommend the ruger black hawk in stainless. Very cool hand gun.
This is even better:
WP_20170113_08_51_30_Pro.jpg

In all seriousness, I'd not want to have to try it on a grizzly. Friend in AK was a fisheries biologist and had to kill two, one with a .44 mag and one with 12 gauge slug; said the 12 ga. was far better but he'd not want to do either again.
 
#39
OMJ-
According the Seattle times article the 200 bear goal is for an area much larger than just the NCNP. The total area where the 200 bears goal in the north Cascade was 9,800 square miles or about 49 square miles/bear. Also from the same article it lists the Yellowstone Park population at 700 grizzlies. That is a density of about 10 times (700 bears in 3,468 square miles) what is being discussed in the north Cascades.

Curt
When you include the British Columbia portion of the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, which extends approximately to the Merritt, BC, you're looking at nearly 13,000 square miles total. That's a lot of wild country for 200 grizzly bears, especially as that goal is unlikely to be reached for more than 60 years. Under the most likely recovery strategy, we're looking at "incremental restoration", 5 bears released a year from similar habitat in Montana or north-central BC, with an initial goal of 25 bears.

It's also good to note that Yellowstone sees FAR more visitors each year than the North Cascades, and North Cascades National Park is one of the lesser visited parks, especially its backcountry areas. Yellowstone makes it work with 700+ grizzlies and more than 3 million visitors a year. We can make it work in the North Cascades with 25 grizz and less than 500,000 visitors each year. Not to say there won't eventually be conflicts, but they're by no means insurmountable.

They are awesome animals I certainly don't mind them bring in Washington. I however think that natural migration and colonization is better than active reintroduction.
That's just not going to happen. We've been waiting and hoping for it to happen for three decades, and no confirmed reproduction has occurred while the isolation of the North Cascades grizzly population has only gotten worse in that time. You only need to look at a map, and the poor health of the nearest other grizzly populations, to understand this.

Even if grizz could (and they physically could, but it would be extremly unlikely) swim the Fraser River and cross that much-developed valley and transportation corridor, or traverse the series of barriers that is northeast Washington's Columbia Valley, Kettle Range, and then Okanogan Valley, northeast WA/northern Idaho's Selkirks grizz population is nowhere close to filling it's available habitat, same with the meager south-central BC grizzly populations in the Stein, Garibaldi-Pitt and Squamish areas. All of those populations are also struggling. You have to go a few hundred miles into BC to the Chilcotin Ranges to find a halfway healthy grizz population. As such, none of these populations are viable sources for wandering grizz reaching the North Cascades. Natural recovery in this case is unfortunately a pipe dream.
 

psycho

Active Member
#40
Quite a few years back there was a problem Grizzly in the Pemberton Valley north of Squamish BC. He was trapped and moved to the south of Princeton BC along the US border. About ( if I remember correctly ) three weeks later he was back in the home valley. He was radio collared and they tracked his movements. He crossed the #1 west of Hope BC ( I think he spent two days around Flood Bc before he crossed the highway )and swam the Fraser, travelled up the west side of Harrison Lake and was home. He ended up being shot, but the trip back was not hard for him.
I see Grizzly north of where I live quite often, I do not understand the fear that lives south of the line. Maybe Canadians really are a more bush wise lot.:D
 

psycho

Active Member
#41
Grizzlies are moving onto the north end of Vancouver Island, which involves some ocean swimming. So swimming the Fraser river is child's play, I have seen Black bears swim the Fraser. Deer as well. Also seen deer swimming between islands around the East side of Vancouver Island.
 

Red Arch

Active Member
#42
Tell that to the guy in Montana who was attacked by a Grizzly right after he made a direct hit on it with a full charge of bear spray.
The guy.

For starters, news article I found makes no mention of bear spray quality.

Second, “Be safe out there,” Orr said in the video. “Bear spray doesn’t always work, but it’s better than nothing.”

https://www.google.ca/amp/globalnew...y-grizzly-bear/amp/?client=ms-android-samsung

Third,
Bear Spray vs. Bullets
Which offers better protection?
At first glance, this question may seem like a no-brainer. After all, aren’t guns made to kill, while pepper
spray (so-called “bear spray,” when it comes in big cans) does not? Unlike an attack by a human assailant,
who may be able to use your own weapon against you, that safety/survival argument for using pepper spray
doesn’t apply to a human-bear encounter... or does it?
When it comes to self defense against grizzly bears, the answer is not as obvious as it may seem. In fact,
experienced hunters are surprised to find that despite the use of firearms against a charging bear, they were
attacked and badly hurt. Evidence of human-bear encounters even suggests that shooting a bear can escalate
the seriousness of an attack, while encounters where firearms are not used are less likely to result in injury
or death of the human or the bear. While firearms can kill a bear, can a bullet kill quickly enough -- and can
the shooter be accurate enough -- to prevent a dangerous, even fatal, attack?
The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled
marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law
enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality --
based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons
defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured
experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero
reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from
a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.
Awareness of bear behavior is the key to mitigating potential danger. Detecting signs of a bear and avoiding
interaction, or understanding defensive bear behaviors, like bluff charges, are the best ways of escaping
injury. The Service supports the pepper spray policy of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, which
states that bear spray is not a substitute for following proper bear avoidance safety techniques, and that bear
spray should be used as a deterrent only in an aggressive or attacking confrontation with a bear.
Like seatbelts, bear spray saves lives. But just as seatbelts don’t make driving off a bridge safe, bear spray
is not a shield against deliberately seeking out or attracting a grizzly bear. No deterrent is 100% effective,
but compared to all others, including firearms, proper use of bear spray has proven to be the best method for
fending off threatening and attacking bears, and for preventing injury to the person and animal involved.


Because the grizzly bear is federally protected in the Lower 48 States as a threatened species, it is a violation of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to shoot one, except in self defense and defense of others during an imminent
attack. Penalties under the ESA include up to 6 months in prison and a $100,000 fine. Additional penalties may
also apply to violations of state law.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...FVj8oWygtowtpB1Gw&sig2=GCIBwS-fmDPW5ZNgacn_xQ

Oh and fourth, it's one guy.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#45
Because the grizzly bear is federally protected in the Lower 48 States as a threatened species, it is a violation of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to shoot one, except in self defense and defense of others during an imminent
attack.
Yes your Honor, I was indeed in fear for my life.
 

Latest posts