JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Bears will kill you.jpg Newest addition to the , "Petting Zoo".
 
Since California's law makers are experts on everything like guns.
I would assume they are experts on Bears?

I suggest we let the experts evaluate this first.
I hear San Francisco, is a great place to try new things. Maybe the bears will help thin the growing street population
of vermin. Vermins good eating they say, I heard it on a documentary, Called Soilent Green.

Hey bears gotta eat.

Argus
 
I didn't read all of the reply's to this post, but if someone hasn't mentioned it then I will:
Aren't we introducing wolves again to these areas too? I'm sure the plan is not to bring in high numbers of grizz and wolf to high population centers, but what keeps this from happening over time?
If proper safety measures via firearms have to be taken when hiking Alaska where these predators are higher in number, will the same safety measures be taken when walking trails in Washington? Will protected status keep people from controlling numbers of these predators once they overpopulate?
Seems like a bad idea to me. But I'm no expert
 
I've seen a lot of talk about how this would benefit the ecosystem but none say HOW. This is a red flag to me. Would be interested to know how well grizzlies are controlled and dealt with in parts of the country where they do still thrive (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.) and see whether their role in those areas improves the ecosystem. Otherwise, introducing an apex predator for sentimental reasons seems a little…silly.
 
I've seen a lot of talk about how this would benefit the ecosystem but none say HOW. This is a red flag to me. Would be interested to know how well grizzlies are controlled and dealt with in parts of the country where they do still thrive (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.) and see whether their role in those areas improves the ecosystem. Otherwise, introducing an apex predator for sentimental reasons seems a little…silly.
I almost took a job in big timber Mt trapping grizzlies. I know they kill alot of cattle and have lots of human health and safety issues. We definitely don't want them in the cascades.....Oregon and Washington can't even manage the predators we have now
 
Let's start out slow. First put a couple in the Biden residence along with a couple in Heels Up Harris's place and one each for Sen. Murray and Cantwell. Give that 6 months and we can revisit the idea. Then we can move to the Inslee residence along with that of the our AG...
 
I didn't read all of the reply's to this post, but if someone hasn't mentioned it then I will:
Aren't we introducing wolves again to these areas too? I'm sure the plan is not to bring in high numbers of grizz and wolf to high population centers, but what keeps this from happening over time?
If proper safety measures via firearms have to be taken when hiking Alaska where these predators are higher in number, will the same safety measures be taken when walking trails in Washington? Will protected status keep people from controlling numbers of these predators once they overpopulate?
Seems like a bad idea to me. But I'm no expert
There are already plenty of wolves in N Washington. Apparently there was a small herd of forest caribou that had started to establish in N. Washington, but got wiped out by predators including wolves.
 
The plan is to eliminate hunting via predators. Griz, wolves, cougars. Then push gun control because you don't need any guns if you can't hunt. The only solution is kill every wolf an bear they drop off. Prove a point enough is enough. No other possible outcome available as voting is corrupted and the game dept owned by liberal nut jobs.
You are exactly right, my thoughts exactly spot on.
 
As an environmental scientist, I have a few thoughts:

1) At face value, ecologically speaking, re-introducing keystone predators can have a sweeping beneficial change to both the landscape and predator/prey interactions within that landscape. Last I checked, we don't have any ungulate overpopulation problems, quite the opposite. We already are protecting a ton of forest in WA as well.

2) The above does not take into account the human element. In Science we often have to look at things with zero emotion, and only logic. This is easy to do when the elements don't directly effect you. Most of the "green" flag flying folks, dont know what its like to be alone in the woods, stumbling across kill sights, or to try and manage and look out for their livestock. Many of them will hapily eat meat, but would never in a lifetime consider harvesting an animal on their own, and bringing it to the end of its life with respect. Saftey is another big issue. Right now the biggest threats in the Cascades to humans are from cougars and two-legged critters. Grizzlies, in dense forest, could lead to some major issues. Lots of gentle hikers in the WA cascade too. Kids, families, through hikers on the PCT, city folk, etc. Folks who hike in Idaho, Alaska, Montana, or Wyoming are a little different breed, usually have a dog, and are often armed. I still don't feel 100% safe hiking with a gun in the Rockies, but at least I can see 100-200 yards at a time. The North Cascades are definitely not that.

3) "Paradigm shift." Our current wildlife ecoligical understandings often rely on historical predator/prey interactions. But we are not in the same environment we were 400 years ago. Much of the flora and fauna are the same, but we have heavily modified and affected our environment. And we have alot of people in these woods too, and already low numbers of deer/elk. We are not in the same environment of the past, and never will be until we can stop consuming at the unsustainable rate that we are. Trying to force keystone predators into these landscapes with the hopes of taking us back in time is just ignorant. We have experienced a paradigm shift environmentally speaking, and we need to be honest with that.

5) Climate change. Our climate is changing, and many of our current ecological practices with both the wildlife, and the environment, is based off of historical climates and the biology that it could support. Realistically we need to stop looking in the rearview mirror and start looking forward. In the northern hemisphere, warming climates are going to push populations of animals north in order to offset warmer climates in the south (we are already experiencing this). North Cascades=Mountains. Mountains are hard to cross for wildlife that can't fly. They are especially hard if a bunch of scientists dropped off 200 hungry Grizzlies who have had time to mate and learn hunting tactics in the N. Cascades, especially if prey species have not had encountered Grizzley territory in the past/south. This doesn't even consider the quiet 2-ton electric cars with glass windshields ripping down the cement barriers we call roads (Paradigm shift).

6) If the feds want to save/protect critters in our area they need to fund more wildlife bridges over highways (like the one near Snoqualmie Pass). That way populations do not get isolated (for both predators and prey) by roads. Also, this would heavily benefit future migrations/movement with respect the climate change.
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Sportsmans Outdoor and Shooting Expo
St Helens, OR
Rickreall Winter Gun Show
Rickreall, OR
All Carson Gun Shows Canceled
Carson, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top