High Sierra Topix

Keep grizzlies up where it is really wild. California will not ever be really wild again. The habitat has changed so much, and grizzlies would just become problem bears, habituated to humans, chronically relocated, displaced and disrupted. I am not that is even fair to the grizzlies. If you think the Sierra are wild, then go to a really wild less densely populated area and you can see how civilized the Sierra has become, along with all of California. There are plenty of other species that would more successfully be reintroduced and integrate into our more populated state.

It would be great if we could reduce the population and increase habitat to the point where grizzlies could co-exist with us. But that train has left the station and it is pie-in-the-sky to think we can go back in time like that.

I also do have a selfish bias. I would like to have a few areas in which to backpack where I do not have to deal with grizzlies. If you have not backpacked in grizzly country, you really have no idea what level of stress and complication that adds. In some areas in Canada now when grizzlies are present, solo backpackers are not allowed- group size must be at least four adults. In some areas camping is restricted only to established campsites. Backpackers have many less freedoms than we do in the Sierra. Campgrounds have to have a separate space, enclosed by an electric fence, for tents and non-hard sided RV's. I backpacked over 20 years in the Wind Rivers before grizzlies came in. The last four years I have had to think about grizzlies, and they are still very sparsely populated there, but ever expanding their range. They were never intended to go there but "escaped" from Yellowstone. The elk population has gone down (also influenced by reintroduction of wolves). It is a grand experiment. Nobody really knows how it will all shake out. I have not seen a grizzly yet, but did run into a wolf last summer.

But they were a native species. Would love to see one or seven traipse down la cienega boulevard. They are more friendly than some of the non-natives.

Other than the native Americans, we are all non-natives. Wild Grizzlies are inherently shy. When they become "friendly" they are habituated and you may be surprised at what it means to be their "friend" (remember those Alaskan "Friends" that got eaten?). You may actually prefer the company of unfriendly non-natives.

Just a few as an experiment.

So, if you wanted this experiment to have any hopes of establishment, there would need to be a minimum of 200 bears, each having a home range of roughly 200 miles, according to the article. 40,000 square miles is roughly 1/4 of the state; an area the size of Kentucky. It would need to be continuous so bears could find each other. Splitting up the minimum population into smaller groups would seem counter productive to establishing a population. There is also the likelihood that it would close the gene pool for each group.

It would be interesting to find out how moving Grizzlies here would measure up to laws regarding the introduction of non-native species into the state. Hopefully, they don't eat Mountain Yellow Legged frogs. Just sayin'. Of course, on that note, we are currently eradicating non-native species from lakes and streams (trout). I've been reading early Sierra Club bulletins and there are several references to our early explorers populating these fishless lakes with trout from neighboring waterways. I wonder how eradicating fish in these waterways fairs with antiquities act or other aspects of historical significance. Maybe an argument can be made, maybe not. Maybe just eradicate the Eastern Brookie and re-introduce the local rainbow and golden population as the explorers did.

Obviously, I don't have much to do today. BTW, Russ, if your La Cienega blvd. is anything like mine, a Griz wouldn't stand a chance of surviving the drive by shootings.

didn't take the wolves 200 to start to repopulate. And yes, same La Cienega blvd. I understand the angst in that neighborhood. And Most!

Still looking for MYLF recipes. I have Ideas.. No, I've never coffee-canned.. Brookies taste better!!!!

As a comparison: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things- ... -in-august

didn't take the wolves 200 to start to repopulate.

I'm not sure, but we may be comparing apples to oranges. Since wolves are pack animals, 60 to 70 individuals could, I suppose, end up breaking into 8 to 10 packs. An Alpha male would have several females in the pack. The very nature of a young adult male in a pack kind of ensures there would be gene sharing from pack to pack as young studs search for mates and start their own pack. Brown bears are solitary animals with large roaming range. I'm just guessing, but it seems to reason that the minimum number of individuals would be relative to their natural behavior. Of course, all of this is moot, IMHO, because once introduced the bears will go wherever they darn well want to go. La Cienega Blvd. is just as likely as any other place. When you look at the historic distribution map in the article, it seems that would be a good idea of where introduced Browns would end up, as well as all travel points in between.

rlown wrote:But they were a native species. Would love to see one or seven traipse down la cienega boulevard.

I'd like to see them on Figueroa St, where the Center for Biological Diversity has an office.

+1 on that!!

simonov wrote:

rlown wrote:But they were a native species. Would love to see one or seven traipse down la cienega boulevard.

I'd like to see them on Figueroa St, where the Center for Biological Diversity has an office.

True. If we are going to reintroduce an apex predator back into Cali, like grizzly or wolf, the first ones should be released in Golden Gate Park, Sac River Parkway, and Griffith Park.

I am certain the urban proponents will not be so hypocritical as to cry NIMBY while insisting the rest of the state accept their presence.