NPS/NFS Pilot Program To Reintroduce Grizzlies To The Sierra

[Rockchucker]

Rockchucker --you take YOUR access for granted. How can you be sure that "less people" does not mean YOU? How can you be sure that the closed areas are not exactly where you would like to go? Reduce the permits allowed by half and you may sing a different tune. I have gone for 8 days in the Sierra without seeing anyone. There really are not too many people in the remote sections of the Sierra. But we have to walk through the more crowded trails to get to where we want to go and these lower elevation access points are where the restrictions would likely apply.

Two areas where there are grizzlies and people (Canadian Rockies National Parks and Glacier National Park USA) there are LOTS of rules and regulations, restricted camping to established campsites, etc. that are in place, partly due to the grizzlies. I can imagine rules that would say you were no longer allowed to solo backpack because it would be deemed too dangerous.

Have YOU hiked in grizzly country? I have and I really do not like it. If Mr. Griz happens to wander on down this way on his own, so be it, but I am not for us trapping him where he is and putting him smack in the Sierra. Black bears may go after your food. Grizzlies are predators - it is really different.

I see what your saying and agree, I still like the idea of less crowds. Luckily I hike many areas that require no permits, and have little to no human contact.

I have hiked quite a bit in grizzly country as a young kid, and only had one far off encounter. I was too young to be scared. I was mainly with my grandpa and never felt scared around him. Today I would probably crap myself if I had an encounter.

By the way I didn't mean to upset you!

[sparky]

I wouldnt go solo in grizz country, I would probably add oder proof bags to my canister, and I would carry spray. WD....you are a brave woman!

It would really be a shame though, not just the potential damage it could cause. I don't like the idea of humans "reintroducing" anything. We aren't masters of mother earth. We are a part of it but not its master.

[Shawn]

The subject title really had me going for a moment....LOL.

[Wandering Daisy]

When I hike in grizzly country, I am on edge. But you really cannot stay on edge that much or you go nuts. After a while I just pretended they were not an issue. Maybe not the smartest thing but had to do it for my sanity. When I was most worried about grizzlies, I woke up in the morning with a moose standing 20 feet from my tent door! I spend most of my time above timber-above griz territory. But they have been know to wander up there. One time I was pinned down at a lower lake by a storm. I knew there were grizzlies and had planned on getting out of the drainage but a big storm moved in and there I was stuck for two days. Between the weather, wondering if I would ever get out, and griz problem, it was not fun. The worst is bushwhaking - you cannot see that far to avoid the bears. I carry the large bear spray cannister. There still is the problem of getting the spray shot in time. When I have hiked (mountaineering) in the Selkirks of Canada, I was with a group so was not as stressed out. Once we got up on the glaciers, we all did breath easier. I would not go solo up there. The difference is LOTS of grizzlies vs. a few in the Wind Rivers. I really love it that I can come back the Sierra and NOT have to deal with grizzlies. For all you who love grizzlies - go up to Canada and see what it is like.

Rockchucker- I did come down a bit hard on you. Sorry to be harsh. I just have a thing about what I perceive as flippant replies.

[Rockchucker]

Wasn't tring to be flippant, one of the tough issues communicating on the Internet, no facial ques to realize the intent of a comment. Again I meant no disrespect!

[Colter]

Tom,

Stats I picked up during visit to Glacier--Using fire arm to protect oneself--survive 50% of the time. Using bear spray to protect oneself survive 90% of the time...

My first thought after seeing the initial post is "that's going to cause some trouble."

That ranger quoted above is wrong. He was paraphrasing this initial quote "since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries."

I strongly suspect that bear spray is usually going to be a better choice, but those stats are pretty fuzzy according to this article: http://www.examiner.com/article/bear-sp ... ety-expert" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I live in grizzly country and know a few folks (including myself) that have killed charging bears. None of those people were injured. Who knows how many of those charges would have resulted in injury if the person wouldn't have fired, however. I've had grizzlies run at me many times and in my experience it's in wilderness country where they haven't identified me as human yet. When they do, they almost always immediately run away.

I don't know anyone killed or even injured by bears with the exception of one acquaintance that was was slightly banged up but, beyond a scare, not seriously injured.

I like having grizzlies in wilderness areas, despite the real but very low risk. That said is it seems like a good idea to limit reintroduction where human/bear conflict is most likely.

[oldranger]

Coulter

Thanks for the clarification!

Mike

[gdurkee]

Thanks for the stats. I would have thought the bear spray/firearm would have been reversed. I guess you get nervous when a bear charges and miss....

I've never seen those stats so they could be iffy. But during the whole changing the weapon carrying laws in National Parks, I called a couple of rangers at Glacier. Both said you're much better off with bear spray than a gun. Years ago, one ranger said he'd never heard of a grizzly stopped by a pistol, though I think it has happened, just rare. When you look at how many times well-trained law enforcement officers miss shots in deadly force situations, it's not hard to imagine hitting a fairly small kill zone on a rapidly moving grizzly.

Another story boys and girls? Oh, OK. So a few summers back, we had a couple of really troublesome bears. They'd already broken into the ranger station. So I see one of them approaching from a distance. I grab a big can of bear spray (which I'd never used before...) and hid behind a tree. When the bear got within about 15 feet, I came out and sprayed at the bear.

Well, it was spray, not a straight stream as I expected. So there's this huge perfectly round globe of orange mist hanging between the bear and I, poised to drift one way or the other. We both looked up at it, looked at each other, and ran opposite directions.

Pretty effective stuff.

George

[SSSdave]

As was mentioned, if grizzlies were reintroduced into the Sierra, most would stay below usual summer backpacking elevations. So would likely impact lower elevation western slope areas at national forest boundaries where they would bother large numbers of private ranchettes and summerhomes built in the last few decades by urban refugees with money to spend as well as seasonal mountain meadow cattle grazing.

I have not been a fan of all the real estate dealings below national forest areas. Actually I dislike the way the whole state of California is endlessly being carved up by the short-sighted greedy land development industries. All along the those western fringe areas from above Bakersfield to above Redding are elaborate networks of new paved and dirt roads crawling with people selling land. A few grizzlies down there would do some good scaring people away from the developers.

[Ikan Mas]

I would second the home for the grizzly being the valley. From some historical ecology work I have read, in Contra Costa County there was a thick brush patch out near Oakley. Apparently this was known in the early days as a grizzly lair. Since the brush was pretty thick, the area wasn't converted to ag until mechanized equipment was available.