Great to see this! I believe theirs 50 in the state, some are in the north cascades already and I believe some are in the Far East of the state. Stuff like this gives me hope for the west which I deeply treasure. A big problem is that there’s way too many people in the mountains from the cities so I would definitely expect some conflict. Wouldn’t be suprised if they made their way down south in the next 10 to 15 years. Or they could head east. But again, makes me very happy to see them in the state again. North Cascades is the best habitat for them.

Personally not looking forward to this. I enjoy only watching my back for cougars. Don’t want to also be looking out for grizzlies.

As a hunter it will be interesting to see how everyone else reacts. I expect the state to take the identification tests even more seriously now

So now I have to worry about brown bears on my hikes

What could go wrong?

Hopefully this will help parking on the trailheads.

[removed]

The bears are like “great now we have to deal with /u/roachman253 on our hikes”

The article says the North Cascades are prime habitat and reintroduction of grizzlies is feasible, while the last process was "discontinued due to overwhelming local opposition". Also that there have been grizzlies sighted there as recently as 2015.

I wonder what the point of expanding the population is? What do grizzlies bring that black bears don't?

We should have dinosaurs in the Hanford area.

not the bears fault if someone is a moron

grizzlies don't really go out and ambush people. you just gotta not startle one.

> I wonder what the point of expanding the population is? What do grizzlies bring that black bears don't?

Biodiversity. They got after slightly different things in the habitat for food. etc

A species native to the area could remain displaced, imparting numerous observed and unobserved ecological consequences?

Is that the answer you were looking for?

[deleted]

Alright we’re going to need mandatory “how to act around bear” courses for all hikers, because grizzlies are potentially way more aggressive than black bears as far as I know. We need to make sure poor bears aren’t getting shot because of stupid people. I worry a bit about potential conflicts at popular areas such as Ross Lake.

I would like to see this work though, because it’s definitely ecologically important.

Edit: maybe not mandatory course, but just much more awareness.

We have plenty of dinosaurs working at Hanford!

Because they belong there just as much as we do

Lucky for you grizzly ain't gonna stalk you like a big cat.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

> What do grizzlies bring that black bears don’t?

Pepper spray scented bear skat.

I hope so. I dream of this every year. Let the predators live where they’re supposed to, and there will be a drastically smaller list of bad hikers out on trails that leave shit everywhere.

More idiots get killed, therefore leaving more natural land for the wildlife that call it home. I love it.

[deleted]

I’ve heard wild animals sometimes attack non-morons as well.

Is it really just slightly different? Grizzly bears are a lot bigger.

The presence of bears will not deter carelessness. It will likely result in human-bear conflict, which almost never ends well for bears.

Grizzlies are far more dangerous than mountain lions. Mountain lions spread across the entire US and average far fewer attacks on humans annually than grizzly bears despite grizzly bears occupying only a super small area of land across a few states.

The bell thing isn't true.

Black bears will mostly leave you alone. And grizzly bears as a whole will as well. But grizzly bears are definitely more territorial than black bears.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Selfishly, I do feel more comfortable in the backcountry when I know grizzlies aren't in the area, but it's also kinda a shame that grizzlies only exist in small pockets in the continental US across WY, ID, MT and a shred of WA. Healthy prevalence of species does trump my comfort level of course though.

As far as scary mammals in North America the top two of my ranked list:

1. Grizzly bears

2. Moose

Black bears and then cougars are probably next but both of those are so far down in scariness compared to the top two they barely even register.

More than we do.

Moose are far more dangerous than grizzlies. Anyone who's spent time living in Alaska knows this very well.

I was and am a big proponent of the wolf reintroduction but I’m not so sure about running around with Griz.

>some are in the north cascades already

Last one was seen in 1996. There's been a lot of monitoring since then in NCNP, with no confirmed sightings, hair, tracks, or scat, so I don't think so.

[removed]

[removed]

This thread is full of some of the most ignorant people imaginable. Thanks for trying to educate them

[removed]

Not redditors who never actually go outside. The same ones who think this actually makes sense.

As someone who spends a lot of time outdoors, I don’t know how I feel about this

The bears have most of North America to wander around up in Canada.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

No one can explain how it is ecologically important. How are the Cascades being negatively impacted by no grizzlies? California? There isnt a negative impact.

I don’t know what to tell you if you think the unprecedented global loss of biodiversity isn’t serious or at the very least alarming you’re lost.

Couldn't the same thing be said about humans? We have all of everywhere else to hang out in too.

Good thing they are limiting us to 10rd mags. Hope thats enough to take down a grizzly with your favorite firearm.

You feel the same way I do. This is a dumb idea that will lead to dead people, dead bears, and has 0 benefit except for the funding to the researchers

Wild animals tend not to attack people who aren't in the wild.

Not that I'm saying you shouldn't go out into the wild - just that your desire to be in the wild doesn't give you the right to domesticate it.

Ok

[removed]

[removed]

Isn't part of the point of being outdoors that you're out in nature? Aren't grizzly bears part of that nature?

If we try to domesticate the wild, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?

3. People who think the desire for outdoor recreation doesn't mean we should sanitize the wild and domesticate it to our liking.

Classic NIMBY lol if nothing else at least Washingtonians are consistent

I hope that if they do re-introduce grizzly bears to Washington state that they let them loose in the capital building. But seriously guys, the first hiker to be ate needs to result in good men of the back country exterminating all grizzly bears in Washington state. I use the term “exterminate” precisely.

The only people that want this are the starry eyed useful idiot environmentalist that are controlled by the Malthusian globalist overlords, the globalist overlords who control them, and the nature worshipers that hate human beings. What I mean by this are the people who pray to the spirits of the forest for it to heal yet wish suffering on their neighbors over a disagreement or a fight. These are the people that would splash acid in the face of a child for the revolution.

[removed]

The point is if you're not okay with the risks of being out in the wild, stay home.

LOL. Sorry I enjoy backpacking and dont want to worry about getting eaten alive, because a bear is feeding on a dead elk near the trail and views me as a threat.

Lets put the fucking grizzlies in your back yard?

Are you an antinatalist?

Grizzlies were driven out of the Western US for a reason. Putting them too close major population centers is a horrible idea. They have tons of territory in the Rockies, Canada, and Alaska in more remote places

And yet here you are suggesting that we shouldn't repatriate a species that we (basically) removed from the area because it would make it more dangerous for us, as if WE are the purpose of nature.

[removed]

[removed]

The horrible idea would be putting major population centers too close to native grizzly habitat. We have tons of territory in other places too.

[removed]

[removed]

So your argument is basically "I am more important than nature"?

Go to somewhere that isn't part of Grizzly bears' natural habitat if you want to recreate without the fear of getting eaten alive.

[removed]

I know you think that's clever and all, but velociraptors don't actually exist.

Our earth too

Or accept the risks of where you choose to live.

Otherwise, you are, in fact, espousing the belief that you are right to reshape nature as you see fit, to serve your own ends.

[removed]

[removed]

Just like grizzlies in WA state. Move to rural BC and have a field day

[removed]

The classic "we do this already, so we can and should do it MORE" argument.

They didn't leave. They were forced out.

[removed]

If you want to do stuff outside, move to Texas and have a field day.

[removed]

Clearly anti human

The classic "revert nature to what it was before modern society" pipe dream

[removed]

[removed]

I'm not actually suggesting that. I'm suggesting you should accept the risks inherent to the choices you make. I have no problem with someone wanting to build a cabin in the woods, for instance. I also have no sympathy for them when it burns down in a forest fire.

I'm saying nature has a right to exist, and if you want to force/keep a species out of an area, you need a better reason than "I want my recreational activities to be less risky."

It’s insane to take the nature out of nature lol.

Only want to experience it if it’s 100% safe?

There what is? The illustration of how stupid your argument is?

I'm literally just parroting your argument back to you, in the hopes that you realize how stupid it is.

Your argument is really "humans are the superior species and therefore we have the right to do whatever we want to all other species, so fuck 'em" and I just wish you'd own that.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Yep, you getting to have recreation wherever you want, with a risk level you're willing to tolerate is more important than other species getting to simply live in their natural habitat.

You: "I love the Washington wilderness, but fuck nature - it should be less wild"

That is not my argument. My argument is that we decided years ago that is in our region's best interest to not have grizzlies.

Sorry, your side lost.

More people go to Yellowstone and Glacier than the north cascades and not many people are getting killed by bears.

I'm curious about the "ecologically important" part. What specifically do you mean by that.

[removed]

Humans are thriving in tons of other places in North America. This isn't about human lives - it's about human convenience. I don't dispute that your life is more "valuable" than a bear's. I dispute that the fulfillment of your recreational goals is.

[removed]

>My argument is that we decided years ago that is in our region's best interest to not have grizzlies.

That's the same argument.

You're defending the choices of the past while pretending not to espouse the beliefs that justified them. LOL.

That's kind of like saying "I'm not racist, but the people of this area thought it was in our best interest to restrict the rights of black people. I'm just a fan of the status quo".

[removed]

[removed]

I think they should reintroduce them as far as Northern California. Its their natural habitat.

Saw a grizz there last year

Edit: who downvoted this? Lol. It was right on the road near Diablo Lake. Loads of cars stopped.

Who gives a shit? The ecology is just fine without them and they have thousands of miles of territory in North America already

There's a difference between reintroducing an animal native to an area who only lost that area due to human interference, and an animal that went extinct due to natural selection.

Also velociraptors weren't native to our region anyway. They were Asian, and Jurassic Park lied to you. If you want to read more about dinosaurs in WA here's a link.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

As someone who lives (with two small boys) in the Methow at the doorstep to NCNP. I’m with u/CnD123 on this one.

Have you ever hiked in Glacier NP u/juiceboxzero? I ask because it’s a very different feel than the cascades, “higher consequences” for lack of attention in the backcountry for one. It’s fun to be in that environment but certainly not something I want to deal with on a daily basis. As someone else stated, black bear are docile, they know their place and rarely cause issues. I ran one off our property (it was eating apples off our tree) just a few weeks ago. Griz are different, they know they’re the top of the food chain. There’s almost certain to be human griz conflict. Guess who’s on the hook when that happens? The federal assassins who’s job it is to hunt and kill any bear that becomes too comfortable around humans (ie. thinks they’re top of the food chain).

I get the sense you are ok with this because you won’t be affected by it. I assume you would feel different if you had experience hiking around griz AND were faced with them reintroduced in your back yard for no functional reason other than “they used to be here many decades ago and it would be nice”. Where does that logic end? There’s no way to change all the ills humans have brought upon this earth by reintroducing griz to NCNP. Unfortunately..

That's what anti-wolf people said about reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone. Then they put them back and saw massive improvements to the entire ecology of park. You can't see a 'negative impact' because you're operating from the assumption that no grizzlies represents 'normal.' That is a false baseline.

One million percent

[deleted]

Did you reach your dog whistle quota

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Lol did you really just try to make a NIMBY argument about bear that EAT people? That’s a really bad analogy, do you realize you just compared grizzly bears to minorities and poor people?

Surely this is a joke

As a result of the WDFW’s inability to manage the predators that already reside in this state, I am fundamentally opposed to putting any attempts to restore grizzly populations in our state.

Do you live in one of these areas where grizzlies would be introduced?

[deleted]

Blizzards are part of nature, too, but you don't want to encounter those, either. We don't have control over blizzards, though.

Somewhere in between when you spot the bear and when the bear rips your jaw from your skull, because that's a grizzly's instinctive fighting technique, is where nature probably stops being pleasant. I don't know the exact line, but it's definitely before it switches to tearing open your abdomen to enjoy your liver.

I don't have an absolute opinion on whether grizzlies should be reintroduced to the north Cascades, but I do have a very strong opinion that if we do so, there had better be an overwhelmingly compelling reason to accept the increased risks of having a far more aggressive species of bear in an area where human activity has increased by leaps and bounds over the last century.

1. Gray wolves are an apex species that occupy a top niche in the natural food chain. Like bears and cougars, they have few competitors and play a prominent role in any ecosystem they inhabit. So yes, wolves are absolutely apex predators. 2) No one is suggesting dropping a bunch of grizzlies off in the suburbs. Peddle your strawman bullshit elsewhere. 3) I lived in rural western Montana for a while, I DID have grizzlies in my neighborhood, and it was fucking awesome.

This wouldn't be r/Washington if someone in the comments didn't find a way to complain about state restrictions on magazine capacities.

[removed]

[removed]

If you're unwilling to accept the consequences of the natural environment you live in, you should consider living elsewhere.

[removed]

[removed]

> Blizzards are part of nature, too, but you don't want to encounter those, either. We don't have control over blizzards, though.

What do you do if you don't want to hike in a blizzard? You don't got hiking when blizzards are likely. Likewise, if you don't want to be attacked by a grizzly, either feel free to not hike in grizzly county, or come prepared to defend yourself.

[removed]

You should stay in the city

I'm from here originally, and I'm going to take the Department of Wildlife's opinion on whether or not they are apex predators over yours. If you're too much of a coward to handle the presence of wildlife in wilderness areas then stay the fuck out of the mountains.

That’s smart. Hope to kill the bears before efforts ever start.

> Bears aren’t interested in attacking you.

They aren't usually interested in hunting people, but it does happen from time-to-time.

Once they've established a home range, however, they can be very interested in defending their territory, especially during mating season. Having read a variety of stories about bears attacks as part of trying to be an aware hiker, they always make me relieved we only have black bears in our area.

Reading a book on the Lewis and Clark expedition in particular made an impression on me. When the natives were telling them stories about grizzlies, they could couldn't wait to encounter one to show off how much braver and better hunters they were.

Actually encountering grizzlies cured the party of that enthusiasm, and Lewis actually almost died in one of the encounters.

https://lewis-clark.org/sciences/mammals/bears/grizzly-bear-encounters/

I guarantee that I spend more time in the woods than you do, and I am absolutely in favor of grizzlies on the landscape. Just admit that you're a fuckin wussy who is scared of encountering a bear. 🤣

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Literally everything you've written is a dumb comment. You're a pathetic, scared, troll with a poor understanding of ecology and too much time on his hands. Chickenshit NIMBYism from a fake outdoorsman at its finest.

You should stay in an area that grizzly lives. So, not here.

> Likewise, if you don't want to be attacked by a grizzly, either feel free to not hike in grizzly county

Yes, that's my primary plan. But apparently your plan is to make that more difficult for me by promoting their reintroduction to the places I normally hike.

If you want to convince me it's a good idea, you need a better argument than sentimentality.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Dogs arent allowed in national parks

People, for example.

Lol. The response I would expect from a person who has so little to add. No response to any of the questions I posed or points I made, simply latched onto the first sound bite that came to mind.

Your comment makes no sense. I moved here BEFORE the griz. I’m willing to accept many consequences of life out here. I take issue with resources being used to artificially implant wild animals (of the aggressive apex predator type) in a area just because they “once roamed there”.

Black bears attack humans on a regular basis, but I don’t think they kill them very often, as opposed to grizzlies (often as a percentage of attacks).

I was asking more about the diet, not about the threat to an individual human in an attack (which is substantially higher for a grizzly), but the two topics are related. My understanding is that grizzlies will attack and kill large game (including humans), which is something black bears don’t do.

You know Grizzly bears are in Yellowstone which is one of the biggest tourist locations in the US. And yet when looking it up, they result in only about one injury every 5 years. According to this the chances of being attacked by a Grizzly bear in Yellowstone is 1 in 2.7 million.

I know you're gonna say, "Well this is somewhere else! Not here in WA!" but if we're gonna make decisions we need to look at similar situations. And the data shows they're not as big a threat as y'all are making them out to be.

Be respectful, be aware of your surroundings, and you'll be fine. Nature isn't some human exclusive playground where anything potentially dangerous to us needs to die.

At this point being the dinosaurs and dodos back. Same logic

You don't even know the name of the government agency that you're claiming is one of the only groups with a reason for wanting grizzlies in Washington. You make the claim that it's because of the funding it will bring. Do you realize that biologists don't get cut a personal check for the work they perform? Your entire shtick is bad faith and straw man arguments and glossing over important details because you don't actually understand anything about what you're trying to say, and you think that you can use "common sense" to prove some kind of a point. Real working professionals laugh at nitwits like you because we can see the shit coming out of your nose and ears.

Here's a bread crumb. Spend some time reading about whitebark pines, Clark's nutcrackers, and grizzlies. Or just keep posting stupid crap, whatever.

Whoever downvoted you clearly has no idea what they're talking about. This is abjectly true. Moose will absolutely fuck you up if you get too up in their business.

[deleted]