Feds want to increase the number of grizzly bears in the North Cascades ecosystem..

FLHTCUI

FLHTCUI

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
131   0   1
Location
Under the CZBB Flight Path.....
While this isnt really a hunting topic it is an interesting proposition on how some governments respond to proposals.
Public consultation and being open about it.
Thought this would be of interest as the Cascade Range is literally 60 minutes away (on a good traffic day)
While this is an American Proposal there are still 3800 sq. miles that extend into Canada.

www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article22280298.html

Rob
 
While this is an American Proposal there are still 3800 sq. miles that extend into Canada.

The Grizzly population along the 49 parallel don't realize there's a border, they go where they damn well please. :) Betting they'll put more pressure on BC to ban hunting.


Grizz
 
I'm all for it, expand and repopulate their range. Until the mid 20th century Grizzlies ranged all the way well into Mexico until the 1960s. If you ask me they belong all over their former North American range, and a place is dead and not a wildnerness without its apex predators intact.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
While this is an American Proposal there are still 3800 sq. miles that extend into Canada.

The Grizzly population along the 49 parallel don't realize there's a border, they go where they damn well please. :) Betting they'll put more pressure on BC to ban hunting.


Grizz
Click to expand...

While they may not recognize the 49th para. they do follow contours of land for ease of travel and habitation.
They also ranged East across the Prairies too at one time.
Rob
 
Ardent said:
Spice of life. ;)
Click to expand...

I have nothing against predators but an Apex predator as you say? There is just not room in areas of heavy human habituation for such a predator. Unfortunately like it or not what man has developed to carve out his own living space is what we are stuck with and our population has increased to the point there is no room in such areas for such an Apex predator. The consequences are not good. Like it or not the remote areas are going to be the Grizzlies domain. It's up to man to ensure the Grizzly gets to retain as much of that space as possible but to try to expand his range into former range that has been populated densely with humans is not sensible IMO.
 
Safe bet I live within a spotting scope range of a grizzly whether I can see them or not, denned or not, for 8 months of the year between bush flying and outfitting grizzly hunts. They're not the monster portrayed, and are just bears with more aggressive characteristics and far lower densities than black bears. Most places that don't have them view them as flesh and blood war machines that will cause immediate problems, the reality is if you can live with black bears you can live with Grizzlies with some education. Grizzlies live at a far lower population density than black bears anywhere except the coast with salmon.

A prairie Grizzly would live at an extremely low density, probably one bear to a thousand square kms or even much less, and would be just like inland bears here. You get to know them, their routes, and leave them be, you'd see it digging for prairie dogs like a big dog once a year, and wonder where it is the rest and how something its size can hide so well. I agree they wouldn't work in all their former range, and would raid beef on the prairies and likely figure out graineries. But somewhere like the Cypress Hills, could absolutely do with a dozen Grizzlies and it would be a proud moment to see them return there for Canada.
 
this is all just a product of liberal ideas, ill lay out my point.

-liberals get their main support from cities
-conservatives from rural areas
-by making people believe nature is dangerous they will push people into cities
-by making nature dangerous they gain a larger support population because rural population decreases, they re-draw the electoral map and gain more seats and ensure control of the government
-so under the guise of being pro environmental they are pushing for control of the government

agree or disagree on the points I've laid out, it does have merit
 
We'll keep the grizzlies out here in the mountains Spank. But we're going to get right on that cloning of velociraptors that are better suited to the prairies.
I have to disagree with you on plains grizzly densities Angus. According to Lewis & Clark the density was astounding with them bumping into several every day and losing many of their support staff to them. Of course this was also the hey day of the plains bison so they had an infinite food source, which logically leads to a heavy density of their apex predator.
 
pringles613 said:
this is all just a product of liberal ideas, ill lay out my point.

-liberals get their main support from cities
-conservatives from rural areas
-by making people believe nature is dangerous they will push people into cities
-by making nature dangerous they gain a larger support population because rural population decreases, they re-draw the electoral map and gain more seats and ensure control of the government
-so under the guise of being pro environmental they are pushing for control of the government

agree or disagree on the points I've laid out, it does have merit
Click to expand...
Hole-Lee Phuck, lol. Ill rather coexist with them than the two legged animals that you find In big city's. People live in such fear of these bears yet spend way more time flying down the road at 100km+ surrounded by idiots in 5000# + steel missles of which half are probably looking at some device.
 
Last edited:
Ardent said:
Safe bet I live within a spotting scope range of a grizzly whether I can see them or not, denned or not, for 8 months of the year between bush flying and outfitting grizzly hunts. They're not the monster portrayed, and are just bears with more aggressive characteristics and far lower densities than black bears. Most places that don't have them view them as flesh and blood war machines that will cause immediate problems, the reality is if you can live with black bears you can live with Grizzlies with some education. Grizzlies live at a far lower population density than black bears anywhere except the coast with salmon.

A prairie Grizzly would live at an extremely low density, probably one bear to a thousand square kms or even much less, and would be just like inland bears here. You get to know them, their routes, and leave them be, you'd see it digging for prairie dogs like a big dog once a year, and wonder where it is the rest and how something its size can hide so well. I agree they wouldn't work in all their former range, and would raid beef on the prairies and likely figure out graineries. But somewhere like the Cypress Hills, could absolutely do with a dozen Grizzlies and it would be a proud moment to see them return there for Canada.
Click to expand...

Yes but to reintroduce grizzlies and have public safety will mean fences and private ranches where bears are welcomed. Many people do not want this. Personally I'll take 2...and I'm willing to pay. But pretty much everyone on gunnutz would rather not see a grizzly bear than see bears behind large fenced and animal friendly habitats.

So until people accept that we need fences and private investment in wildlife conservation here in Canada, the truth is these bears and all predators or any wildlife that poses even a small risk to public safety or costs ranchers in lost revenue will be systematically destroyed. And for the time being you're going to need to charter a private plane to remote areas to truly see wilderness or what resembles it.

Would one large trophy grizzly bear hunt pay for 20-50 cattle kills if sold on the world market? Duh yeah it would but some people never want to see the bears pay their way economically and compete for space with cattle. These are the same people that think their $40 draw tags buy habitat and protect it. Rather, it's the true cost of the hunt that needs to be realized for the bears to be saved in todays world. Nobody is going to keep thousands of square miles of habitat for wildlife when they can't sell it to generate the funds needed to keep the land for wildlife in the first place.

Like any business out there, wildlife will only be preserved and protected by the very people who can properly value it and profit from it. Give the bears a price, give the bears a life. Otherwise they will continue to be replaced by every and any other thing that generates revenue in our world. And since the bears actually pose a threat to people and property they will have a particularly difficult time of surviving into the 22nd century.

How many of you gunnutterz are prepared to pay the full price of keeping the bears alive? I bought and paid for my land and I choose to keep it wild...how many of you will spend anything above your $40 tags to keep the wildlife around?? Yeah...I thought so. Everyone wants to shoot and kill but no one wants to invest in the wildlife beyond their rifle and box of shells. I'm not singling you out on this Ardent, I think you and I want to keep wildlife around. I'm just elaborating in the points you raised. You and I are one of the few guys who brings value to the hunting and conservation community.
 
Last edited:
umchorn2 said:
Yes but to reintroduce grizzlies and have public safety will mean fences and private ranches where bears are welcomed. Many people do not want this. Personally I'll take 2...and I'm willing to pay. But pretty much everyone on gunnutz would rather not see a grizzly bear than see bears behind large fenced and animal friendly habitats.

So until people accept that we need fences and private investment in wildlife conservation here in Canada, the truth is these bears and all predators or any wildlife that poses even a small risk to public safety or costs ranchers in lost revenue will be systematically destroyed. And for the time being you're going to need to charter a private plane to remote areas to truly see wilderness or what resembles it.

Would one large trophy grizzly bear hunt pay for 20-50 cattle kills if sold on the world market? Duh yeah it would but some people never want to see the bears pay their way economically and compete for space with cattle. These are the same people that think their $40 draw tags buy habitat and protect it. Rather, it's the true cost of the hunt that needs to be realized for the bears to be saved in todays world. Nobody is going to keep thousands of square miles of habitat for wildlife when they can't sell it to generate the funds needed to keep the land for wildlife in the first place.

Like any business out there, wildlife will only be preserved and protected by the very people who can properly value it and profit from it. Give the bears a price, give the bears a life. Otherwise they will continue to be replaced by every and any other thing that generates revenue in our world. And since the bears actually pose a threat to people and property they will have a particularly difficult time of surviving into the 22nd century. How many of you gunnutterz are prepared to pay the full price of keeping the bears alive? I bought my land...how many of you will spend anything above your $40 tags to keep the wildlife around?? Yeah...I thought so. Big talkers on here...very little action. Might sound like I talk a big game...but I back it up. I'm not singling you out on this Ardent, I think you and I want to keep wildlife around. I'm just elaborating in the points you raised.
Click to expand...

001858_21.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom