Grizzlies Are Coming Back. But Can We Make Room For Them? (nationalgeographic.com) 84
As grizzly bears expand their range in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming into places where they haven't been seen in a century or more, they're increasingly encountering humans. From a report: Things intensified last summer as trails and campgrounds across the region flooded with inexperienced tourists seeking refuge in the outdoors during the coronavirus pandemic. Grizzly attacks spiked. Bear managers were inundated with calls about grizzlies getting into garbage, chickens, and other draws. Dispersing grizzlies even came unexpectedly close to neighboring states -- a remote camera in Wyoming captured a grizzly only 20 miles from the Utah border and a radio collared bear in Idaho nearly roamed into Oregon and Washington. Ultimately, 2020 offered a nerve-jangling look at the challenges and complex future of grizzly bears in America.
Grizzly bears occupy a conflicted, toothy corner of the American psyche -- we revere them even as they haunt our nightmares. You can buy food at Grizzly Grocery before climbing Grizzly Peak or hiking Grizzly Gulch. You can have your furnace serviced by Grizzly Plumbing and Heating. Here in the Northern Rockies, and everywhere grizzlies are found, people erect statues of them, frame pictures on their walls, and, if they see a grizzly in the wild, tell breathless stories around campfires and dinner tables for the rest of their lives. Ask the tourists from around the world that flood into Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks what they most hope to see, and their answer is often the same: a grizzly bear. The western half of the U.S. teemed with grizzlies at the time of European contact, with an estimated 50,000 or more living alongside Native Americans, from the Pacific to the midwestern prairies and into the mountains of Mexico. By the early 1970s, after centuries of relentless shooting, trapping, and poisoning by settlers, 600 to 800 grizzlies remained on a mere 2 percent of their former range in the alpine fastness of the Northern Rockies. Their slide into oblivion was stemmed in 1975 with their listing under the Endangered Species Act and the legal protections it afforded.
Today, in a testament to the power of wildlife populations to rebound when given room to do so, there are an estimated 2,000 or more grizzly bears in the contiguous U.S. (and approximately 25,000 in Canada and 30,000 in Alaska). Their recovery has been so successful that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has twice in the past 13 years attempted to de-list the species, most recently in 2017, which would loosen legal protections and allow them to be hunted. Both efforts were overturned in federal court due to lawsuits from conservation groups. For now, grizzlies remain listed. In the lower 48, grizzlies are anchored by two populations in Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks and surrounding ecosystems. Glacier bears represent the southern edge of the great, uninterrupted mass of grizzlies that inhabit wildlands from Montana to Alaska.
Grizzly bears occupy a conflicted, toothy corner of the American psyche -- we revere them even as they haunt our nightmares. You can buy food at Grizzly Grocery before climbing Grizzly Peak or hiking Grizzly Gulch. You can have your furnace serviced by Grizzly Plumbing and Heating. Here in the Northern Rockies, and everywhere grizzlies are found, people erect statues of them, frame pictures on their walls, and, if they see a grizzly in the wild, tell breathless stories around campfires and dinner tables for the rest of their lives. Ask the tourists from around the world that flood into Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks what they most hope to see, and their answer is often the same: a grizzly bear. The western half of the U.S. teemed with grizzlies at the time of European contact, with an estimated 50,000 or more living alongside Native Americans, from the Pacific to the midwestern prairies and into the mountains of Mexico. By the early 1970s, after centuries of relentless shooting, trapping, and poisoning by settlers, 600 to 800 grizzlies remained on a mere 2 percent of their former range in the alpine fastness of the Northern Rockies. Their slide into oblivion was stemmed in 1975 with their listing under the Endangered Species Act and the legal protections it afforded.
Today, in a testament to the power of wildlife populations to rebound when given room to do so, there are an estimated 2,000 or more grizzly bears in the contiguous U.S. (and approximately 25,000 in Canada and 30,000 in Alaska). Their recovery has been so successful that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has twice in the past 13 years attempted to de-list the species, most recently in 2017, which would loosen legal protections and allow them to be hunted. Both efforts were overturned in federal court due to lawsuits from conservation groups. For now, grizzlies remain listed. In the lower 48, grizzlies are anchored by two populations in Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks and surrounding ecosystems. Glacier bears represent the southern edge of the great, uninterrupted mass of grizzlies that inhabit wildlands from Montana to Alaska.
If I see a grizzly (Score:5, Funny)
I'll definitely make room.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If I see a grizzly (Score:5, Funny)
Good luck with that. Grizzlies can run 55kph. In contrast, Usan Bolt runs around 43kph in the 200M...
You only have to run faster than your slowest friend.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You only have to run faster than your slowest **ex**friend.
Corrected that for you.
Re:If I see a grizzly (Score:4, Insightful)
You only have to run faster than your slowest friend.
On Slashdot, most of the audience is the slow, fat friend.
Re: (Score:1)
They get that way by playing computer games hunting grizzly bears not be being bait for hungry ones. They only watch youtube videos of other people being chased by grizzly bears.
Re: (Score:1)
I couldn't possible comment.
https://store.steampowered.com... [steampowered.com]
Re: (Score:3)
This is too grizzly to bear.
Re: (Score:3)
Or a slowest Libertarian... (Score:2)
There is significant evidence [newrepublic.com] pointing towards higher concentrations of Libertarians causing a rise in the number of grizzlies and bears in general. [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And often ineffective at stopping a charging Grizzly. They're tough and have thick skulls and get upset about being shot.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard it's closer to being a 97% success rate [ammoland.com] with handguns used in defense of grizzlies. The descriptions imply that the 357 magnum is less effective than average, which is surprising because its characteristics are often better than a typical 9mm load. A really hot 9mm and more rounds fired would make a big difference I assume.
For cougars I usually carry a knife, for when I'm walking the yappy little dog. Either it will ambush me and kill me instantly, then the caliber of fire arm is irrelevant. Or i
Re: If I see a grizzly (Score:1)
357 magnum produces less energy in most short revolver than a 9mm parabellum does. Different for long rifles though. The other problem is that the larger 357 produces more kick so more difficult to be accurate over multiple shots and often in revolver format so depending on the firearm is not nearly as fast or has as much bullets as a semi-auto. And bears generally wonâ(TM)t keel over from a single shot, they often need 5 or 6 to land in soft areas such as neck to get chased away, so having a clip of 1
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine that you have opinions about firing multiple shots. But it doesn't match up with the article I linked. Ultimately if a bear is 10 feet away and charges you, you won't have time to pull the trigger more than once. Some of the cases described the follow up shots being fired after the bear has already started to run away, and I suspect this is pretty typical for incidents where multiple rounds are fired. And that people don't always recall the order of events very accurately when they are under press
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada, so hand guns aren't really an option. Any high powered gun with a decent sized bullet should work if you hit them right. I was thinking more of the shotgun option, all I've ever had in Grizzly country, where you do really want a slug. I note your link is for a mixture of bears, a black bear is a lot easier to kill.
As for cougars, usually a full grown man can take one on, a knife helps. There's been 2 stories in the local news of cougars grabbing dogs and the owners grabbing them back recently
Re:If I see a grizzly [I'll make room] (Score:1)
in my freezer.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll definitely make room."
He would make himself some room anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll definitely make room.
I'll make room in my stomach. While these Improbable Burgers seem to be all the rage with fast food chains these days . . . I personally would prefer a Double Grizzly . . . with gooey cheese and bacon.
If they reduce the local deer population. (Score:3)
Designing a solution is easy. (Score:5, Funny)
First, start by assuming people will act responsibly and display at least a small amount of common sense when it comes to these animals.
Re:Designing a solution is easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, invert your assumption to realize what would actually happen.
Re: (Score:2)
First, start by assuming people will act responsibly and display at least a small amount of common sense when it comes to these animals.
Have you ever been to Walmart?
Huh. (Score:2)
The only "logical" purpose for reintroducing grizzly bears (I can think of) is to limit certain types of population (deer, etc) - but - by far the majority of Grizzly bears' diet is something other than meat, and even the part that is meat is mainly already dead.
Basically, those in favor of reintroducing wolves to keep down deer population - sure (although, I'm not sure how I feel about that either.) Reintroducing grizzly bears seems pointless from a purely logical standpoint, and dangerous if it's near hum
Re: (Score:2)
If on the other hand this public policy isn't based on logic, then it makes more sense. - DING DING DING we have a winnneerrrr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current policy isn't "reintroducing" them, it's just making it illegal for assholes to go out and shoot them for "fun".
If there's too many then maybe trapping/moving them to Alaska is an option. If not, allow an official yearly cull.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Interesting)
If on the other hand this public policy isn't based on logic, then it makes more sense.
These days? With our leaders? I'd count on the "sensible" argument.
To be fair, I think the headline is a bit misleading (shocker, I know):
"Things intensified last summer as trails and campgrounds across the region flooded with inexperienced tourists seeking refuge in the outdoors during the coronavirus pandemic. Grizzly attacks spiked."
An increase in Grizzlies "coming back" (from sightings to maulings), isn't exactly surprising when humans start wandering deeper and deeper into their damn home. Duh. Inexperienced tourists, tend to get lost. Wander off the beaten path. Probably in search of Insta-whore fame with that "special" location to make-pretend they're "one" with nature, dressed in Luludorkenstocks and "roughing it" in a $150,000 sponsored camper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone was proposing 'reintroducing' brown bears, this is all natural population increase and expanding ranges as the population increases.
Re: (Score:1)
And like bringing wolves back, it only works where there is not humans, with their ranching and pets that make such easy meals.
Not to mention elementary school kids waiting at school bus stops in the early morning.
Re: Huh. (Score:2)
We have wolves all over the place, very near where humans live. I can hear them barking and howling almost every night, their den must be maybe a half a km from my house. Wolves arenâ(TM)t a problem, they are like small dogs, they stay away from humans and yes, plenty of deer makes them re-populate faster. Bears, especially grizzlies, are a different thing entirely, from an entirely evolutionary standpoint, up to ~500 years ago in the US they were above humans in the food chain. They have not adapted t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Waiting for rats to reclaim New York.
Re: (Score:2)
Rats aren't native to the America's, at least not the rats you're thinking off.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for rats to reclaim New York.
Trump moved to Florida, not back to New York.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the grizzlies should be reintroduced to control the human population. 8^)
Yes I am kidding (mostly) but I have always found it funny that we introduce/reintroduce species into an area to control populations of animals yet can't be bothered to even talk about limiting human populations to a sane level.
Let the flaming begin. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the grizzlies should be reintroduced to control the human population. 8^)
Why not? California is already doing that with mountain lions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, lots of people against birth control, sex education and educating women.
Re: (Score:3)
The "logical" purpose for reintroducing grizzly bears is to prevent their extinction in the lower 48. It's a value -- I for one don't want every single natural, beautiful part of our landscape destroyed and the country turned into just a long tapestry of strip malls, industrial agriculture, and urban areas.
Re: (Score:3)
Reintroducing grizzly bears seems pointless from a purely logical standpoint, and dangerous if it's near humans since although they may not eat humans they are extremely territorial.
They definitely will eat humans if they are hungry. They are smart, so if they learn that humans are dangerous they might avoid them... unless they are hungry and find a lone camper somewhere, easy meat.
Grizzlies are not senselessly aggressive, but they're big and dangerous, and they know it.
Re: (Score:2)
They are smart, so if they learn that humans are dangerous they might avoid them... unless they are hungry and find a lone camper somewhere, easy meat.
Grizzlies are not senselessly aggressive, but they're big and dangerous, and they know it.
And you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.
Remember, when attacked by a bear, always throw the condiments into a ravine. No sense making yourself more delicious.
Well? (Score:5, Informative)
Here in my neck of the woods, encounters with bears happen. Ours are the jumbo version of black bears. They not only inhabit the deep woods, but roam up and down the streets in my development. I've even had encounters with Bobcats and seen glimpses of panthers. When we are out in the woods, we are guests in their home, and we need to know how to act and take care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Florida Man?
Re: (Score:2)
Florida Man?
Pennsylvania man!
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, didn't think there were any mountain lions in Pennsylvania anymore...you manage to get a good picture and that will be front page news!
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, didn't think there were any mountain lions in Pennsylvania anymore...you manage to get a good picture and that will be front page news!
Indeed! It's one of those things like ball lightning, a lot of people claimed it didn't exist. The best views I'd seen were twice when one ran across the road from me. One was a young cub, the other an adolescent, and I've just caught glimpses of adults. And that was before I got a dashcam. But maybe this spring/summer with the cam. And given the good sightings were of young ones, I'll definitely stay in the car, because that means the mom is nearby.
A Bobcat is more than a match for an unarmed human. A p
I'm not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, even Internet providers aren't that cruel [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The big thing here is teaching people to not leave the garbage out, cleaning up the fruit trees and such. Bears are only a problem if they get habituated to people food. Though it is kind of funny when they find someones pool and go for a swim.
The problem with tranking them and releasing them elsewhere is there are usually already bears occupying the territory who don't want competition, only so much food and the bear wants to go home.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:4, Informative)
All of the trash/garbage bins around here have hinged lids so there's little in the way of smell to attract bears. And, as far as where the bears are released goes, the people in Animal Control know what they're doing and release the bears far away from any inhabited land so that they rarely become a problem again. I've lived up here for 2.5 years now, and I've not heard of any bears being killed for making trouble in town.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:4, Informative)
Hinged lids don't seem to help much, bears have really good noses. How many reports are made there? There's been a series of bad berry crops in the hills here. Trying to find statistics for last year, all I'm finding is for the first part of the year, for example, article for June 13th, over 2000 reports to fish and wildlife over 3 months, 20 euthanized, 4 relocated and 6 rehabilitated, with most people reluctant to report them. https://www.citynews1130.com/2... [citynews1130.com] When they start breaking into houses, there isn't much choice. They've also become pretty good at opening car doors to get in, unluckily, not so good about getting out again, though those ones usually learn once they're let out.
On topic, the other year there was a Grizzly caught about 50 miles north and released about 125 miles east of me. It had a GPS collar, and found its way back home pretty quick, coupe of months IIRC, traveling through the highly populated valley with no sightings of it. They can be sneaky.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If we're talking purely about numbers, yes it's meaningless.
If we're talking about the horror of being chased, killed and/or eaten alive by a freakin' grizzly bear, it's far from nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still better than being killed by a teenager driving a car while texting.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it can be pretty fucking grim [huffpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you are OK with abortion then a few humans eaten every year by grizzlies means nothing.
You're in luck. I happen to agree with both sentiments.
You know (Score:2)
we have 2 perfectly good Dakotas, a Wyoming and an Idaho where Grizzlies would probably end up with larger populations than humans in a few decades...
I can already see it now... (Score:2, Funny)
Reply #1: Do you want to become a happy meal? Because that's how you become a happy meal.
Reply #2: "Hey BooBoo, we're eating Chinese tonight!" - Yogi
Urban Grizzly Program (Score:2)
I've got a spare bedroom (Score:1)
The Memphis Grizzlies are welcome to hang out any time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Grizzly bears and black bears are two completely different animals. Black bears - which our woods team with - generally leave humans alone and in turn are left alone by humans. Grizzly bears will hunt and kill humans for food if they get a chance.
As I've heard it, it's actually somewhat the other way around:
Though they don't do it all that often, black bears hunt humans for food. They stalk them. First strike is to rip out the lymph nodes and arteries from an armpit. Then the bear eats this treat while t
Re: (Score:3)
The Grizzlies, at least the ones who live around people, places like Banff, are becoming more like black bears, mostly avoiding people, becoming nocturnal and not being much of a threat.
Both Grizzlies and Black bears in country where they haven't seen people are dangerous as we're food.
Then there are Polar Bears, who definitely like to snack on people, makes living somewhere like Churchill, MB pretty exciting. You carry a big gun just to visit the neighbours, even right in town.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are [grizzlies] far larger and more powerful than the black bear, [they're] more inclined to kill for whatever reason.
As I mention below: Apparently they mistake human normal posture for a grizzly bear threat display. That tends to escalate into a battle because, once the grizzly mistakes the human as another grizzly, the human has a hard time NOT looking like a threat display.
I think you're not only permitted, but encouraged to be appropriately armed if hiking in Alaskan grizzly country; and it
Re: (Score:2)
I also know a guy who got lucky out in the woods vs a feral hog that had treed him. Body shots examined after a successful head shot showed that
Re: (Score:2)
You need a slug to kill a Grizzly, and even then, being a good shot, which usually means waiting till it's close.
Re:I think a lot of people don't get something (Score:4, Informative)
You need a slug to kill a Grizzly, and even then, being a good shot, which usually means waiting till it's close.
Then again...
I recall reading an article when the .44 auto-mag was new. For those not familiar with it, back in the late '60s (somewhere between '66 and '71) somebody designed a 7-round semiauto pistol and cartridge to fire a 240 grain .429 at 1600-1800 fps - same speed and roughly equivalent mass, dimensions, and stopping power as the .44 magnum revolver round.
It included a couple anecdotes about early experiences with it. One involved a hunter carrying it as a sidearm. (These are used for various things during a hunt - including pot-hunting for camping snacks or target-of-opportunity varmint hunting. Maybe this guy liked to watch squirrels expode. Anyhow...)
Story goes he was going through a small stand of trees when, about arm's length ahead, up pops a grizzly. Grizzly makes a pre-attack threat. His rifle isn't usable (don't recall why - probaby because the grizzly is too close.) Figuring he's dead anyhow so he might as well go down shooting, he draws his .44 automag and fires once, point blank, into the grizzly's chest.
The grizzly pauses - and then falls down.
Revealing the second grizzly.
Which falls down.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, there's other firearms that'll work, and in his case, it sounds like a lucky heart shot as well, though the 2nd one is harder to believe.
There was a Grizzly in the Yukon a hundred plus years back that was a man killer. When it was finely killed, it had an amazing amount of lead in it, probably why it was so cranky.
Grizzly's are smaller today, at least here, as there is so little salmon anymore, which likely makes a difference as well.
Mythical Creatures (Score:2)
No bear tracks seen at our tent camping sites. No bear tracks seen in the pull outs in the parks.
I'm sure there are bears in Montana and Wyoming, but our bear spray can remains unused. Perhaps it wards them off.
Re: (Score:3)
No bear tracks seen at our tent camping sites. No bear tracks seen in the pull outs in the parks.... I'm sure there are bears in Montana and Wyoming, but our bear spray can remains unused. ....
That is actually good to hear. It means 60 years of bear management are working ( https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn... [nps.gov] ). When you consider that "... average home range size throughout North America for an adult female grizzly bear is about 70 square miles. Adult males have much larger home ranges, often 300-500 square miles" the probability is quite low of an encounter, barring concentration around human refuse. https://www.nationalparkstrave... [nationalpa...aveler.org] Depending on your brand of spray, it can act as a repellent, or
Shocked and appalled (Score:2)
"...a remote camera in Wyoming captured a grizzly only 20 miles from the Utah border and a radio collared bear in Idaho nearly roamed into Oregon and Washington.
Bears don't obey state borders? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
Grizzle Bear Attack Survivor Club (Score:2)
I have a niece that works in the ER in Cranbrook BC and they see 2 to 3 Griz attacks per year. She tells me that there is a Grizzly Bear Attack Survivor club in BC. And that is one club you don't want to be eligible to become a member. That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger, unless it was a Grizzly because they just mess you up in very serious ways and you won't be stronger.
"getting into chickens" (Score:2)
Now, that's quite a feat.
Seriously though, why is this even a problem. I thought the huge states of Montana and Wyoming barely have any population, besides their congressional delegation.
'Since the Bear...' (Score:2)
There is a book from anthropologist Nastassja Martin where she describes how she was attacked by a bear, somewhere in 2015 in Kamtchatka.
The book is in French, named "Croire aux fauves" ('to believe in wild beasts') ; it is a significant strike, explaining how from being half devoured (years of surgery to recover something remotely called a face, among others) she modifies her view of other animals, and how she thinks now about Nature.
A very, very significant read.
And definitely neither your average kill-th
Re: (Score:2)
found a kind of English summary :
"That day, August 25, 2015, the event was not: a bear attacked a French anthropologist somewhere in the mountains of Kamchatka. The event is: a bear and a woman meet and the boundaries between the worlds implode. Not only the physical limits between a human and a beast which, when confronted, open faults on their bodies and in their heads. It is also the time of myth which joins reality; formerly joining the current one; the dream that joins the embodied."