Washington
Related: About this forum'Hell no to grizzlies': Darrington locals give federal agencies an earful
DARRINGTON Andy Holland had been hiking near Meadow Mountain, about 20 miles east of Darrington in summer 1943, when he and his wife Dolly spotted a grizzly bear one that several of his fellow rangers had told him campfire stories about.
In his memoir Switchbacks, the longtime U.S. Forest Service ranger recalled sprinting away at the sight: an alpha predator lunging in their direction. But when he learned hunters shot the animal that autumn, he still felt an old friend had been killed.
Hollands account was one of the final documented sightings of grizzlies in Washington in the 1900s. But it isnt listed in a typewritten record of encounters in the North Cascades, compiled in 1980, that shows the massive bears roamed the woods until just a few generations ago. The last confirmed sighting was in 1996, a testament to their extermination in even the most remote reaches of the Cascades.
Eighty years after Hollands story, a public meeting Thursday in Darrington drew a packed house of locals almost unanimously opposed to the proposed reintroduction of grizzly bears in the region.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/hell-no-to-grizzlies-darrington-locals-give-federal-agencies-an-earful/
2naSalit
(94,123 posts)When it comes to predators.
stopdiggin
(13,119 posts)are worried about wolves and mountain lions. People that like to camp, swim, hike - and basically walk in the woods - are worried about grizzlies.
(and granted, in either case the threat might not be extreme - but you can't tell people that wolves don't or won't take livestock - or that bears are unknown to attack humans)
So then the question becomes does the ecological advantage gained by reintroducing the grizzly to this area - outweigh the potential problem/danger?
(And then too - we have a fairly large and developed portion of the populous - that absolutely hates and distrusts anything the government proposes to do. Right?)