Wildlife reintroduction in PNW , Grizzly Bear ... really ?

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
what's in a name ? As Treepeoples we all appreciate Latin botanical being quite descriptive in many cases , a friend on Ski Patrol has the name "Captain Cocktail" that's right Captain ... of ALL Cocktails. My point is you don't get names for nothing , the guy from J Geils Band is called "Magic Dick" so ... Anywho that big old Grizzly Bear has HORRIBLE in it's name. HORRIBLE so ,
 
Reminds me of a discussion I had with a guy on the Danish Woodturner's forum about Cyanoacrylate glue.

He figured that because it had Cyano in it's name, and cyanide was an ingredient in Cyclone B gas ( Used by ol' Adolph to gas jews, for those ignorant of history) it must be pure poison.

I countered with the fact that since Hydrocyanide, a deadly poison, shares Hydro with water, we should probably stop drinking that.

W.C. Fields: " I don't drink water, fish frig in it"

My point is: Because someone back in the dark ages, before the .454 Casull was invented, gave the bear the Ursus horribilis moniker, shouldn't much matter today.

Except to Butch, who isn't with us any more.

I have hitchhiked through Canada to Alaska, wilderness camping the whole way up and down.
Hiked around Mt. Denali for 2 weeks, saw loads of Grizz.
At no time were they anything but a nuisance, because of the precautions, one has to take when cooking and storing food.
As impossible to believe as I'm sure it is for you Americans, I was unarmed the whole time.

I've lived in a tent in lots of places with big predators and except for a leopard , that raided a Hyrax colony right outside our tent at night in the Negev desert and made such an unbeliveable racket, that we didn't get any sleep, none of then have ever bothered me or been remotely the threat humans present.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
Introduction or reintroduction of a top predator where there pretty much isn't one , seems food supply for U.H. is ridiculously easy and abundant so ,
 
stikine said:
You guys have no idea... period . Been living with Brown bears for over 37 years. Most of you haven't even ever seen one, so why do you even think you have an opinion on the matter?
Click to expand...
Because this is the internet?

Would someone who has been living with Brown Bears for 74 years be twice the expert you feel you are?

If you have seen a Polar Bear but I have seen two,should you listen to me twice as intently?
 
Someone who has lived with the deadly Kea and survived, should certainly be considered an expert in such matters.
 
stig said:
Someone who has lived with the deadly Kea and survived, should certainly be considered an expert in such matters.
Click to expand...
As much as someone who has logged the mountainous old growth forests of Denmark?

I never really was to worried about Brown Bears,I spent 5 years living in Country that had Brownies and Blackies. I made all the stupid mistakes that a young guy would do,walked up to a gut pile where I had shot a deer prior and spooked a Blackie off it. Threw a rock at a Brown Bear when I was drunk,because I thought it was a Bolder in the poor light and practically moon walked backwards scared sober.

Anyhow I dont think any New Zealander have become the victim of Brown Bears,so I should have considered that all along.
 
Something I can weigh in on. This BS is happening in my state as they are releasing up to 150 Grizz over the next 20 years in the North Cascade Mountain range. From the Canadian border to south of Wenatchee. I, along with a lot of other folks around here fought hard to keep this from happening. But it did no good, as the Federal Gvt didn't give a rip, and was all, "cool story bro... here's some apex eating machines." The human population of WA will not support a heavy Grizz population, unless the Federal Gvt want to just feed humans to bears. My take is, that the Feds are using this tool to keep people out of public lands. The public lands in this state are heavily overused these days. Also, if they are "recovering" Grizz in WA State, the Feds and the animal rights industry and the anti-hunting industry can claim they aren't "recovered" yet and keep the entire species in the lower 48 on the ESA list. It's complete and utter Bullshit.

There are already Grizz in the North Cascades in WA State, and there is nothing hindering their movement south. I already have to take a bear identification test each year if I plan to hunt the North Cascades for Black Bears. The test determines if you can tell the difference from a Black Bear and a Grizz. If Grizz wanted to be further south, they would. There is no basis for this except the politics that follow it right back to extreme animal rights industry and the anti-hunting industry. I say "industry" because animals like the Grizz are a HUGE cash cow for them. So are wolves. Both industries abuse the Equal Access to Justice Act and are paid large amounts of money for every frivolous lawsuit they file. So, without the Grizz and the reintroduction of wolves, their pocketbooks would be a lot lighter. Hell, there probably wouldn't be as many groups in the industry if it weren't for the ability to cash in on these animals.

If you want more Info on the EAJA you can click this link Equal Access to Injustice - https://www.rmef.org/elk-network/equal-access-to-injustice/ It provides a look at the abuse of the EAJA act by the Animal rights and anti-hunting industries. The link is from a well-respected conservation group out werst and paints the picture of how extreme groups are using it on the backs of the taxpayers of this nation.

Gary
 
Similar to the release of wolves in Michigans UP, they were not needed or wanted.
Pretty much have destroyed the deer herd in some areas...
Or the effin turkeys released by me....nobody hunts them now, predators don't dent the population and farmers hate the destructive bastards.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top