I agree completely. I just have been around grizzly bears less so feel more on edge around them even if totally irrational in comparison to moose.

>The Department of Wildlife gets more funding as a result of this.

First of all, good. Second, does that mean they don't know the definition of an Apex predator? What's your point? You realized that you were just wrong about the definition of 'apex predator' so you decided to pivot to yet another straw man?

>No one is complaining about wolf reintroduction other than farmers.

That's not remotely true. It was largely hunters. PS - when they raise livestock instead of crops they're called ranchers not farmers, dumbass. PPS - the only major group complaining about BEAR reintroduction is (spoiler alert) The National Cattlemen's Beef Association. AKA Ranchers!

>The public does not want this to happen, and it wont. It was already struck down once.

It wasn't 'struck down' and it had nothing to do with public opinion. In mid-2017, officials from the U.S. Department of the Interior, without clear explanation, halted progress on the recovery efforts. The process kicked back into gear in 2019, but that effort was again squelched by Interior, under the Trump administration, in 2020.

>Hopefully you dont ever startle a grizzly. Because it wont go well for you.

I already have, but I carry bear spray in grizzly territory and am not an idiot, so, as is the case in the vast vast VAST majority of bear encounters, I am fine. However, it's very obvious that you have exactly zero understanding of not just this issue, but of bears in general. You're just some cretin who thinks the big bad bears are out to get you, and you're either too lazy or too stupid to educate yourself about how to be safe in bear country. I'm done with you.

Doesnt feel like a democracy when politicians get to choose gun and abortion rights.

What? It's absolutely a good metric. There are literally more grizzly bear attacks than cougar attacks despite cougars existing in almost every state and humans being around them way more than grizzlies.

Gauging danger of an animal based on social media videos you've seen is a way worse metric.

[removed]

[deleted]

1. Blackberries are out of season.
2. Anyplace you go within 50 miles of Mt Rainier NP, you’re going to get hosed by a tourist trap.
3. This includes Ashford, Elbe, Packwood, and Greenwater.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 one of the most effective martial arts moves is the straight punch.

One of the most effective google fu moves is just bothering to search for anything at all

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”.

People, for example.

Dogs arent allowed in national parks

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

> 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.

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

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.

[removed]

[removed]