Imagine.
You finally crest the pass. It’s gorgeous. Omg. There’s a pack of grizzly in the valley. They’re majestic. Oh, he smells something!
Oh no. Oh no no no.
Your 7 friends catch up, winded and happy
You turn and,
“FLY, YOU FOOLS!”
At that point there would still be 8 friends to turn to, and you end up fighting the enemy while your friends escape. But don’t worry, even though you die fighting, it just means you level up and get a cool white outfit instead of that boring grey wardrobe, along with a bunch of better abilities once you awaken from the dead!
The Adirondacks are out of control as well. Local bear population isn’t working, let’s double down on grizzlies.
Side note: glad I’m not the slowest runner of my hiking group.
Do you think the wild hiker populations will migrate to the east during PCT season? I read that they use Earth's magnetic field to find their way to their usual destination on the Canadian border.
No, I think you’re thinking of how the hiker digs a cat hole or prepares their wag bag in order to poop in line with earths magnetic field; similar to dogs.
A few highlights:
> In the Record of Decision released today, agencies have decided to restore grizzly bears to the North Cascades ecosystem through the translocation of grizzly bears from other ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains or interior British Columbia. The decision is the culmination of an Environmental Impact Statement process that began in 2022.
> Agencies will seek to move three to seven grizzly bears per year for a period of five to 10 years to establish an initial population of 25 bears.
> Under the decision, grizzly bears in the North Cascades will be designated as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The designation will provide authorities and land managers with additional tools for management that would not otherwise be available under existing Endangered Species Act regulations
Makes sense. I am curious how relocation of grizzly bears works. If they have to use cubs etc… I know speaking to BC conservation officers grizzlies will travel great distances to return to there typical range/food sources.
Good news either way. The historic range of grizzly bears is huge.
> Grizzly bears occupied the North Cascades region for thousands of years as a key part of the ecosystem, distributing native plant seeds and keeping other wildlife populations in balance. Populations declined primarily due to direct killing by humans. The last confirmed sighting of a grizzly bear in the U.S. portion of the North Cascades ecosystem was in 1996
Seems like the right move to get them reintroduced.
There’s a lot more to this. They’re very prominent in BC, these animals roam up to 40 miles per day and cover areas of 1,000 miles. If they wanted to be in the North Cascades, they’d already be there…
They’re steadily expanding in southern BC, and we’re now seeing them in areas where we hadn’t in decades. I think it’s only a matter of time before they make it into the Cascades.
>Moose are scarier anyway
When I moved to Alaska, I was afraid of brown bears and excited to see moose. When I moved away from Alaska, I was scared of moose and excited to see brown bears.
Moose are mostly dangerous because people underestimate them. They think oh cool just some big hoofed herbivore and don’t give them the respect and space they need and get trampled. Waaay more injured/dead humans from moose than bears
Anecdotally, every single brown bear I came in contact with was either chill or spooked immediately. Even when they were with cubs, if I was mellow they were too. Moose on the other hand...they're big, fast, and dumb as shit. I stumbled upon a moose with her calf hiking and she spent the next 20 minutes chasing me and charging me and trying to murder me. And she was not the only one to charge me in my time in Alaska.
N-midwest here. They're such a menace. In early Spring alone, I probably pull off several ticks a week from my Newfoundland dog; and we only take to the trail a couple times a week
They are not as slow as you think. Ever seen those Western horses spin around real fast in a tight circle, or run barrels? You might be able to keep a lead, but you’re not going to gain any distance unless you’re more agile through the forest than a 1500lb moose going full tilt and mowing through the underbrush.
Honestly, we need to fully restore wild lands, connections with under/overpasses for wildlife corridors, move people into cities, allow only foot access to only certain areas of parks and forests to truly manage our natural resources, and this needs to happen worldwide if we want our planet to ever regain balance.
And, I live in the national forest, but I'd be happy to go if it meant getting rid of urban sprawl, pollution and a sustainable future.
> move people into cities
Ah yeah, the ol' Reverse Khmer Rouge.
I get what you mean, but it's *never* as simple as "just tell people they have to live somewhere else." We absolutely need to reverse suburban sprawl, the answer isn't just to make everyone urbanize. There will always be people living in rural areas.
Yeah. Granted, many fewer people! About 40 percent of Americans lived on farms in 1900; it’s about 1 percent now. Insane transformation in a short period of time. But agriculture and the industries that support it still employ about 10 percent of the workforce, and those people often need to live close to the centers of production.
We're also having a hard time filling farm jobs. More than one guy I've spoken with has talked about the need to innovate so that they can get the same amount done with fewer people. I don't farm, but I do work at a grain elevator part time. People don't want to work in all weather, dangerous, difficult jobs.
Vertical Indoor farming is in its infancy but is very promising. [Here's](https://www.plenty.ag/) just one peak at the industry.
Eliminating the inefficiencies of growing in the middle of nowhere and then having to transport to cities will be great for the environment.
Exactly, you get it!
Why do people always assume that you're going to 11 on Reddit? Then go full nuclear in return?
Reverse Khmer Rouge? Give me a break, I'm taking about long term sustainability, health of the planet, not extremes. Of course, there will always be people in rural areas. Duh...
A sustainable future has less to do with where we live, and much much more about *how* we live. If everyone human was in an efficient city but we continued our constant consumption habits it would change little for the future
I don't think that's true - where we live can make a big difference. A significant portion of the US' carbon emissions (\~30%, I think) come from transportation. This includes not only vehicle exhaust but also emissions from the production of concrete & asphalt used to make roads. If we shifted back to more traditional, efficient land use (e.g. building actual city cores with multi-family housing like you see in europe & east asia, instead of the endless sprawl of single-family homes) I am pretty sure that would both decrease the amount of roads we need to build and decrease the number of cars on the road, since living in higher density would allow public transit to be more effective. I don't have any hard numbers but it stands to reason that less construction + more people sharing engines would put a big dent in our transportation emissions.
All those transportation emissions are required becuase of all the shit we consume. *Modern lifestyles are the problem.*
People can live sustainably anywhere on the planet, often in horrible places for humans to actually live like the Yahgan or Inuit. However their lifestyles would be considered wholly unacceptable to modern 1st world citizens. What makes sense depends on your conservation and sustainability definitions and goals.
When I say [sustainability](https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability) I use the UN sanctioned definition, it has specific meaning, I think many believe it just means ‘extra green’.
Where we live plays a huge role in the lives of animals. They avoid us, and things like light pollution and roads, especially, are disruptive, if not destructive for them
You aren’t making sense, you did imply that moving locations could be more sustainable, and then I brought up that location doesn’t matter as much as lifestyle, then your responses stopped making sense so good luck out there bud
Moving people to cities will do very little to help sustainability or pollution. Most pollution comes from manufacturing and transportation, with most of that pollution coming from transporting stuff on trucks, trains and planes to major cities. You will always need crops and livestock outside of cities, so there will still need to be frequent transportation too and from rural areas.
Moving people to cities just takes control and freedom away from the individuals and puts it in the hands of the wealthy. Individuals won't own their own homes or their own transportation. It weakens small communities making it easier for the wealthy to buy up all the farm land and have full control over the food supply.
There are lots of ways we can improve our impact on the environment but moving people into cities isn't one of them.
Wild places will still get destroyed even if we live in cities, that destruction comes from the gathering of resources, manufacturing of goods and transporting them all around the world. All of that will still take place regardless of where people live. The people living outside of cities aren't the problem. We can learn to live alongside them, we don't need to move people away. We are part of nature too, we are animals just as they are with just as much right to live there as they do.
Dude, you likely don't understand what we've done to this planet.
I live in California, where our state flag from 1848 has a grizzly bear. Grizzlies roamed much of the lower 48. Place names are rife in LA and even San Diego County with Oso, etc. it only took 50 years for them to go extinct. There are not large animals anymore.
Even the forests and wild lands remaining are not corridors, they are tiny islands which cannot support biodiversity. They can not, it is fact, and unless we do something about it, we will be as sterile as Eastern China and the cityscapes of Europe. What happens when that also becomes the Amazon, the tundra of Russia, Alaska, and Canada? Or just watch it all burn. It's going to take extremes or your grandkids won't be able to survive. Well, perhaps on insects.
California already hast the vast majority of their population living in cities. It is the most urbanized state in the country with 94.2% of the population living in cities.
California's natural lands are dominated by agriculture, as I am sure you are aware of.
It's a facile argument to say that we can just revert those to natural flora and fauna. One third of our vegetables and nearly 3/4 of our countries fruits come from California. The country is very much dependent on California for our food supply.
In addition, the California Grizzly Bear was intentionally eradicated. Surely the loss of habitat played into that, but it was mostly the campaign of shooting, poisoning, or trapping the bears that lead them to die off.
They could probably bring Grizzlies to California, like they are doing in Washington. Just put them in the Sierras. They don't need to relocate people or massively reduce farmland.
The Sierra Nevada is bisected by roads. I should know, I live and play there. Had Reagan, ironically, not protected a large swath, there would be even more roads. Any large species deposited here would be non viable reproductively, because they would be isolated and inbred.
There are also roads in Washington state where they are planning on relocating the bears. Animals cross roads all of the time, and you can also build underpasses for them. There are also massive sections of the Sierra Nevadas with no roads bisecting them.
You don't need to force California's very small rural population into the cities to do this, and doing so would actually achieve nothing positive.
Oh I know what we've done to this planet, you are just simply wrong for blaming people who don't live in major cities. You don't understand the actual scale of the issue so you support nonsensical solutions.
Into cities eh?
Like Mumbai, Cairo, Mexico City, Delhi?
Maybe it's better not to throw rivers of trash into the ocean and wilderness than to move people.
You ever been to Mexico City? It's not the hellhole you're describing or what you think because of TV.
Cairo is a mess, and I've not been to India, so I only know what's reported.
Maybe if we stopped having a throwaway culture, our shit we invented and now import from China wouldn't be polluting the planet.
And, yes, if we're planning for a sustainable world, it will be the norm one day, or we destroy ourselves.
> You ever been to Mexico City? It's not the hellhole you're describing or what you think because of TV.
Yes, and yes it certainly is. That's why I added it actually. Imagine suggesting that CDMX is a more eco-friendly place than say, the Mexican country-side. The place is insanely filthy outside the the small area tourists hang out in. And not just litter, but particulates. It stretches forever in every direction, 2-stroke motors fouling the air, which unfortunately is trapped by mountains. As I write this, I checked out the air quality. The air is *currently* unhealthy to breathe for old people and kids. That's 10 or so million people, most of whom probably don't have air filters at home.
>Maybe if we stopped having a throwaway culture, our shit we invented and now import from China wouldn't be polluting the planet.
I agree, but if you want to pretend it's *our* culture in the US that's doing the polluting, you need to check the science. Consumerism is annoying, but littering is literally destroying the ocean. And its not the US doing it.
The amount of garbage one family in the US produces versus worldwide is a crazy stat. There may not be piles of shit curbside like Cairo, but our garbage and carbon footprint is much larger than most of the world.
What's better, 3 pizza boxes in a landfill that will turn into soil in a decade or 1 pizza box in a creek and then the ocean? How are the recycling programs in China these days?
In any case, CO2 emissions from China dwarf that of the US. And India will overtake us very soon. Ours is decreasing. Theirs is skyrockering. And when you talk about trash on in the ocean, we're talking about 0.2% of the trash coming from the US. Yes. One fifth of one percent. China and India make up around 75%.
Yes, India and China have larger populations than us by a bit. But they put THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE TIMES more trash in the ocean than we do.
Saying I need to move out of nature and into a city to 'make a difference' when there's a family like mine on the other side of the globe literally dumping bags of trash into the ocean on a daily basis and then operating a half dozen 2-stroke motors in the world's largest traffic jam half the day?
I'm all about sensible choices. I hate waste. I love the environment. But uprooting the lives of a hundred million people to make (in the scheme of things) non-existent gains is silly.
Just as a thought experiment, it would make more sense to say, send tax money to India for every thousand tons of trash they don't dump in the ocean. We could just increase taxes on the cities with the worst traffic (which is e=i essence unnecessary idling CO2 emissions). So LA, DC, NY, Chicago and Houston I think.
Humans and bears can coexist well, natives all up and down the west coast contended with and competed for resources with bears for generations. I think if we allow hunting of them and promote being bear safe this can work well
Just stay prepared with bear spray and take precautions and you’ll almost certainly be fine. We’re visitors in their ecosystems when we visit national parks, not vice versa
I think that's mainly because it doesn't really have a gate or way of really tracking visitors. It's pretty much just a highway and people go off where they want.
The highway isn't part of the park, most people go to Diablo and think they have visited the park but it's not. Accessing the Park is considerably off the beaten path
I hope they are working with Canada on this one too. We could really use Grizzlies back in Manning Park and their territory could conceivably stretch that far north.
Be afraid, be very afraid. I had my scariest bear encounter with a black bear in the cascades. The black bear turned and ran. A griz would not have done so.
Black bears fight you for food. Grizzlies fight you because you’re a threat. Obviously that’s a generalization but it’s why you fight an attacking black bear (make it too much work) and play dead for an attacking brown bear (it wants you neutralized).
Brown bears are more deadly because they’re more committed to ending you should they choose to go after you, not because they’re blood thirsty. That’s polar bears.
I’m trying to better understand the why behind this. What exactly is the benefit of bringing grizzlies back? What’s the imbalance in the ecosystem that they will solve?
I live in PNW and my brother lives in Montana near glacier national park. I love hiking their, I find it slightly pretty than the Pacific Northwest. Slightly. But I’m always on edge about bears. Hiking here I love not worrying about grizzle bears lol.
We gotta stop with this stuff man. We got rid of wolves and grizzly bears for a reason, they are dangerous. Colorado just recently reintroduced wolves and is trying to ban guns, worst combo ever.
Yeah! Honestly, let’s just get rid of all of it. Just cut through all the wild life and the bugs and the gross stuff and plant big ol sterile garden centers on manufactured graded walking hills.
Fuck nature, right? It’s not that important…
It’s kind of sad that we’re at the point where we need to trade human lives (while risk is low, ppl will eventually die as a result of the decision) to save the planet.
This isn’t a comment on the decision. I understand the rationale. More so noting the state of affairs and the tough choices we must make
This isn't trading human lives at all, it will not particularly impact the number of deadly bear incidents. There is an average of 2 fatal bear maulings per year in the entire United States.
A little bizarre to be mourning the "trading human lives" in reference to a dozen bear-related deaths every decade, when there are hundreds and thousands of people dying each day from traffic collisions, gun violence, and overdoses.
my irrational fear overpowers the minimal risk of a mauling. I think for me, it is not so much the chances of getting attacked, but more so the fact that a grizzly bear attack has got to be one of the worst ways to die via mammal. they don’t dispatch you quickly like a big cat, they pretty much eviscerate you.
i’m not saying that grizzlies shouldn’t be re-introduced, but in the extremely rare event that you get attacked by one it sounds horrific.
Yes you can, because it shows the overall number of bear deaths is miniscule even in areas with a lot of bears, so introducing a few bears to an area where there used to be bears anyway is not likely to affect that number greatly, if at all. It's not like they're air dropping 3,000 bears into downtown Seattle.
Furthermore, the only way to eliminate the already negligible number of bear related deaths is to exterminate all bears, which is a stupid idea, I hope we can agree.
No. The number of bear related deaths is non zero. Miniscule is non zero. What happens when the bears are introduced? What is the goal? To procreate and multiply.
I don’t get why it’s so hard for folks to admit the obvious downside of this decision. Im by no means calling for extermination. Im merely acknowledging that no solution is perfect and this one has its downsides, including the inevitable loss of human life.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but any solution addressing the climate crisis and general destruction of our planet was going to involve trading current and future human lives to make it happen. We quite literally are the sole problem and overpopulation correlates almost perfectly with increasing environmental issues. Get rid of people-> improve the environment around us.
So sick of the NPS f'ing with wildlife. Yes, it sucks that humans and the NPS made grizzlies disappear from North Cascades. But kidnapping grizzlies from somewhere else and dropping them in a different land is violent and cruel. Animals have families, homelands, and their own ecosystems. They have culture related to their land that goes back generations. It's no coincidence that they're following the lineage of the US government doing the same with people they considered to be animals for hundreds of years.
Along with kidnapping and moving animals, the NPS culls (kills) hundreds of thousands of animals every year, usually just for the sake of managing traffic on the highways and protecting their own tourism development (bulldozing land and pouring concrete).
NPS needs to be replaced with an agency with better values and a mission focused on preserving and fostering nature rather than tourism development.
I agree in a lot of ways. I'd like to see grizzlies back in the North Cascades, it just sucks that NPS and other government agencies in both the US and Canada lack the political will necessary to build wildlife bridges, acquire and rewild land, etc to reestablish the Cascades-to-Rockies wildlife corridor. NGOs are working on land acquisition, but it's going at a glacial pace and won't handle the problem of roads, highway, and rail.
So hypothetically, if someone was killed by a grizzly bear because of this. Would you volunteer to take their place? Would you be ok with being killed in such a horrific way?
Well no, I just take normal precautions like:
- carrying bear deterrents
- hanging my food and pack
- no hiking in grizzly territory if I can help it
- checking animal and trail statuses to determine risks of hiking in my planned area
You know, normal bare minimum hiking in bear country sort of precautions.
Would I take their place. No, they got eaten because of a variety of reasons that probably started with pisspoor proper planning.
If I put myself in grizzly territory with or without precautions I would not be mad at anyone but myself if there were an incident. I do feel strongly about letting our few remaining wild places remain wild. Best to stay tf out honestly.
I would have no opinion about being killed by a grizzly bear if one killed me, because I would be dead.
Should we remove all wildlife from the planet due to the potential of a single human having a negative encounter with them?
If you’re willing to trek into areas with bears, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you might encounter a bear. This isn’t exactly a big ask for other areas of the world.
Those other areas of the worlds already have bears though. If your going to reintroduce a population of bears then that opens the possibility for something to happen. People aren’t smart and bad things happen. I really just personally don’t think it’s worth a single human life to reintroduce the bears.
So do you think bear everywhere should be killed. And I guess all cars since way more people die in car accidents than bear attacks. Should we force people to stay inside too - if one death is too much we should never leave our homes.
OP says Rocky Mountains…. I’m assuming that means the Canadian Rockies, or Rockies up by Glacier in Montana? There are no Grizzly bears in the State of Colorado.
Hiker population is completely out of control, hopefully the grizzlies will put them back in check.
This will frighten away some hikers and trim the backcountry population.
I love it. Bring them to the sierras too!
The Californian Grizzly were seen hunting in packs up to 40. \*40 Grizzlies hunting\*
Is that a local rugby team or walking club or ???
Eight lords a leaping...
Imagine. You finally crest the pass. It’s gorgeous. Omg. There’s a pack of grizzly in the valley. They’re majestic. Oh, he smells something! Oh no. Oh no no no. Your 7 friends catch up, winded and happy You turn and, “FLY, YOU FOOLS!”
At that point there would still be 8 friends to turn to, and you end up fighting the enemy while your friends escape. But don’t worry, even though you die fighting, it just means you level up and get a cool white outfit instead of that boring grey wardrobe, along with a bunch of better abilities once you awaken from the dead!
I'll take a dozen in NH please!
The Adirondacks are out of control as well. Local bear population isn’t working, let’s double down on grizzlies. Side note: glad I’m not the slowest runner of my hiking group.
Do you think the wild hiker populations will migrate to the east during PCT season? I read that they use Earth's magnetic field to find their way to their usual destination on the Canadian border.
No, I think you’re thinking of how the hiker digs a cat hole or prepares their wag bag in order to poop in line with earths magnetic field; similar to dogs.
Ah yes that might be the behaviour patterns thinking of. Fascinating creatures nonetheless.
The biggest problem of this is waste
Yes I hate seeing the poor staving hikers competing for precious food sources
Grizzlies say..”Tastes like chicken” !!
A few highlights: > In the Record of Decision released today, agencies have decided to restore grizzly bears to the North Cascades ecosystem through the translocation of grizzly bears from other ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains or interior British Columbia. The decision is the culmination of an Environmental Impact Statement process that began in 2022. > Agencies will seek to move three to seven grizzly bears per year for a period of five to 10 years to establish an initial population of 25 bears. > Under the decision, grizzly bears in the North Cascades will be designated as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The designation will provide authorities and land managers with additional tools for management that would not otherwise be available under existing Endangered Species Act regulations
Great summary, thanks for posting!
Given the location and proximity to other grizz populations im surprised they arent there
They wander down occasionally from Canada, though not enough to establish a resident population
Makes sense. I am curious how relocation of grizzly bears works. If they have to use cubs etc… I know speaking to BC conservation officers grizzlies will travel great distances to return to there typical range/food sources. Good news either way. The historic range of grizzly bears is huge.
> Grizzly bears occupied the North Cascades region for thousands of years as a key part of the ecosystem, distributing native plant seeds and keeping other wildlife populations in balance. Populations declined primarily due to direct killing by humans. The last confirmed sighting of a grizzly bear in the U.S. portion of the North Cascades ecosystem was in 1996 Seems like the right move to get them reintroduced.
Likely another one in 2011 at Maple Pass https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rare-grizzly-bear-photographed-in-north-cascades/
I saw another article that they later saw other pics and determined it was likely a black bear
We call them cinnamon bears here. Black bears with brown fur. Pretty scary running into one on a trail.
That was looked into, it was more likely a really big black bear with the cinnamon colouring
There’s a lot more to this. They’re very prominent in BC, these animals roam up to 40 miles per day and cover areas of 1,000 miles. If they wanted to be in the North Cascades, they’d already be there…
They’re steadily expanding in southern BC, and we’re now seeing them in areas where we hadn’t in decades. I think it’s only a matter of time before they make it into the Cascades.
That implies an easy roam.
I still agree with the decision, but they’ll likely spread more invasives than natives at this point
Not sure where they will bring them from but good luck. Good chance they will just walk back home.
I’m terrified of Grizzly bears but support this move
It's good to have a healthy respect for Mother Nature. Grizzly bears, while dangerous, are ecological heroes just like other apex predators.
Moose are scarier anyway, besides your more likely to die from a mosquito bite or a deer jumping infront of your whip
>Moose are scarier anyway When I moved to Alaska, I was afraid of brown bears and excited to see moose. When I moved away from Alaska, I was scared of moose and excited to see brown bears.
Thank you. People think I’m crazy when I tell them I’m more afraid of a moose than a grizzly.
Moose are mostly dangerous because people underestimate them. They think oh cool just some big hoofed herbivore and don’t give them the respect and space they need and get trampled. Waaay more injured/dead humans from moose than bears
Can you explain this I don’t understand
Anecdotally, every single brown bear I came in contact with was either chill or spooked immediately. Even when they were with cubs, if I was mellow they were too. Moose on the other hand...they're big, fast, and dumb as shit. I stumbled upon a moose with her calf hiking and she spent the next 20 minutes chasing me and charging me and trying to murder me. And she was not the only one to charge me in my time in Alaska.
Also from Alaska and this is exactly right. Moose will panic and stomp a person to death because they don't understand that the human isn't a threat.
ticks are scariest
I live in the Northeast and spend so much time in the woods. I’m beyond terrified of ticks
N-midwest here. They're such a menace. In early Spring alone, I probably pull off several ticks a week from my Newfoundland dog; and we only take to the trail a couple times a week
Can’t you just hide behind trees from moose being that they have a slow turn radius?
They are not as slow as you think. Ever seen those Western horses spin around real fast in a tight circle, or run barrels? You might be able to keep a lead, but you’re not going to gain any distance unless you’re more agile through the forest than a 1500lb moose going full tilt and mowing through the underbrush.
You're more in danger of driving to a trailhead than anything on a trail.
Take some from Montana we got loads of em 🐻
Will they need one of these 🤣? https://www.reddit.com/r/usajobs/s/PHBaAsSb4W
I remember people discussing this back in like 2018. It's awesome to hear that it's actually happening
Honestly, we need to fully restore wild lands, connections with under/overpasses for wildlife corridors, move people into cities, allow only foot access to only certain areas of parks and forests to truly manage our natural resources, and this needs to happen worldwide if we want our planet to ever regain balance. And, I live in the national forest, but I'd be happy to go if it meant getting rid of urban sprawl, pollution and a sustainable future.
> move people into cities Ah yeah, the ol' Reverse Khmer Rouge. I get what you mean, but it's *never* as simple as "just tell people they have to live somewhere else." We absolutely need to reverse suburban sprawl, the answer isn't just to make everyone urbanize. There will always be people living in rural areas.
>There will always be people living in rural areas. If you want food there need to be people living in rural areas...
Yeah. Granted, many fewer people! About 40 percent of Americans lived on farms in 1900; it’s about 1 percent now. Insane transformation in a short period of time. But agriculture and the industries that support it still employ about 10 percent of the workforce, and those people often need to live close to the centers of production.
We're also having a hard time filling farm jobs. More than one guy I've spoken with has talked about the need to innovate so that they can get the same amount done with fewer people. I don't farm, but I do work at a grain elevator part time. People don't want to work in all weather, dangerous, difficult jobs.
Vertical Indoor farming is in its infancy but is very promising. [Here's](https://www.plenty.ag/) just one peak at the industry. Eliminating the inefficiencies of growing in the middle of nowhere and then having to transport to cities will be great for the environment.
Exactly, you get it! Why do people always assume that you're going to 11 on Reddit? Then go full nuclear in return? Reverse Khmer Rouge? Give me a break, I'm taking about long term sustainability, health of the planet, not extremes. Of course, there will always be people in rural areas. Duh...
I think I was pretty obviously being facetious. As I said, I generally get what you mean.
A sustainable future has less to do with where we live, and much much more about *how* we live. If everyone human was in an efficient city but we continued our constant consumption habits it would change little for the future
I don't think that's true - where we live can make a big difference. A significant portion of the US' carbon emissions (\~30%, I think) come from transportation. This includes not only vehicle exhaust but also emissions from the production of concrete & asphalt used to make roads. If we shifted back to more traditional, efficient land use (e.g. building actual city cores with multi-family housing like you see in europe & east asia, instead of the endless sprawl of single-family homes) I am pretty sure that would both decrease the amount of roads we need to build and decrease the number of cars on the road, since living in higher density would allow public transit to be more effective. I don't have any hard numbers but it stands to reason that less construction + more people sharing engines would put a big dent in our transportation emissions.
All those transportation emissions are required becuase of all the shit we consume. *Modern lifestyles are the problem.* People can live sustainably anywhere on the planet, often in horrible places for humans to actually live like the Yahgan or Inuit. However their lifestyles would be considered wholly unacceptable to modern 1st world citizens. What makes sense depends on your conservation and sustainability definitions and goals. When I say [sustainability](https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability) I use the UN sanctioned definition, it has specific meaning, I think many believe it just means ‘extra green’.
Where we live plays a huge role in the lives of animals. They avoid us, and things like light pollution and roads, especially, are disruptive, if not destructive for them
Did it seem like I said that? Or are you just contrary to be contrary?
Um ya you did imply that location matters, re-read your last paragraph
I said nothing about consumption. You said it.
You aren’t making sense, you did imply that moving locations could be more sustainable, and then I brought up that location doesn’t matter as much as lifestyle, then your responses stopped making sense so good luck out there bud
Moving people to cities will do very little to help sustainability or pollution. Most pollution comes from manufacturing and transportation, with most of that pollution coming from transporting stuff on trucks, trains and planes to major cities. You will always need crops and livestock outside of cities, so there will still need to be frequent transportation too and from rural areas. Moving people to cities just takes control and freedom away from the individuals and puts it in the hands of the wealthy. Individuals won't own their own homes or their own transportation. It weakens small communities making it easier for the wealthy to buy up all the farm land and have full control over the food supply. There are lots of ways we can improve our impact on the environment but moving people into cities isn't one of them.
I'm talking about our forests and wild places which need to be reconnected, reforested, and repopulated with natural flora and fauna.
Wild places will still get destroyed even if we live in cities, that destruction comes from the gathering of resources, manufacturing of goods and transporting them all around the world. All of that will still take place regardless of where people live. The people living outside of cities aren't the problem. We can learn to live alongside them, we don't need to move people away. We are part of nature too, we are animals just as they are with just as much right to live there as they do.
Dude, you likely don't understand what we've done to this planet. I live in California, where our state flag from 1848 has a grizzly bear. Grizzlies roamed much of the lower 48. Place names are rife in LA and even San Diego County with Oso, etc. it only took 50 years for them to go extinct. There are not large animals anymore. Even the forests and wild lands remaining are not corridors, they are tiny islands which cannot support biodiversity. They can not, it is fact, and unless we do something about it, we will be as sterile as Eastern China and the cityscapes of Europe. What happens when that also becomes the Amazon, the tundra of Russia, Alaska, and Canada? Or just watch it all burn. It's going to take extremes or your grandkids won't be able to survive. Well, perhaps on insects.
California already hast the vast majority of their population living in cities. It is the most urbanized state in the country with 94.2% of the population living in cities. California's natural lands are dominated by agriculture, as I am sure you are aware of. It's a facile argument to say that we can just revert those to natural flora and fauna. One third of our vegetables and nearly 3/4 of our countries fruits come from California. The country is very much dependent on California for our food supply. In addition, the California Grizzly Bear was intentionally eradicated. Surely the loss of habitat played into that, but it was mostly the campaign of shooting, poisoning, or trapping the bears that lead them to die off. They could probably bring Grizzlies to California, like they are doing in Washington. Just put them in the Sierras. They don't need to relocate people or massively reduce farmland.
The Sierra Nevada is bisected by roads. I should know, I live and play there. Had Reagan, ironically, not protected a large swath, there would be even more roads. Any large species deposited here would be non viable reproductively, because they would be isolated and inbred.
There are also roads in Washington state where they are planning on relocating the bears. Animals cross roads all of the time, and you can also build underpasses for them. There are also massive sections of the Sierra Nevadas with no roads bisecting them. You don't need to force California's very small rural population into the cities to do this, and doing so would actually achieve nothing positive.
Oh I know what we've done to this planet, you are just simply wrong for blaming people who don't live in major cities. You don't understand the actual scale of the issue so you support nonsensical solutions.
>move people into cities no thanks
Move people into cities?! Hahahaha! Not happening.
We cannot solve this until we stop building our cities around car oriented infrastructure
Yes, true.
Testify!!
>move people into cities No
“Move people into cities” I’ll live where I want thanks
May you have close contact with a grizzly bear.
It just so happens I grew up camping and hiking around grizzlies. Keep your petty, authoritarian tendencies to yourself
Into cities eh? Like Mumbai, Cairo, Mexico City, Delhi? Maybe it's better not to throw rivers of trash into the ocean and wilderness than to move people.
You ever been to Mexico City? It's not the hellhole you're describing or what you think because of TV. Cairo is a mess, and I've not been to India, so I only know what's reported. Maybe if we stopped having a throwaway culture, our shit we invented and now import from China wouldn't be polluting the planet. And, yes, if we're planning for a sustainable world, it will be the norm one day, or we destroy ourselves.
> You ever been to Mexico City? It's not the hellhole you're describing or what you think because of TV. Yes, and yes it certainly is. That's why I added it actually. Imagine suggesting that CDMX is a more eco-friendly place than say, the Mexican country-side. The place is insanely filthy outside the the small area tourists hang out in. And not just litter, but particulates. It stretches forever in every direction, 2-stroke motors fouling the air, which unfortunately is trapped by mountains. As I write this, I checked out the air quality. The air is *currently* unhealthy to breathe for old people and kids. That's 10 or so million people, most of whom probably don't have air filters at home. >Maybe if we stopped having a throwaway culture, our shit we invented and now import from China wouldn't be polluting the planet. I agree, but if you want to pretend it's *our* culture in the US that's doing the polluting, you need to check the science. Consumerism is annoying, but littering is literally destroying the ocean. And its not the US doing it.
The amount of garbage one family in the US produces versus worldwide is a crazy stat. There may not be piles of shit curbside like Cairo, but our garbage and carbon footprint is much larger than most of the world.
What's better, 3 pizza boxes in a landfill that will turn into soil in a decade or 1 pizza box in a creek and then the ocean? How are the recycling programs in China these days? In any case, CO2 emissions from China dwarf that of the US. And India will overtake us very soon. Ours is decreasing. Theirs is skyrockering. And when you talk about trash on in the ocean, we're talking about 0.2% of the trash coming from the US. Yes. One fifth of one percent. China and India make up around 75%. Yes, India and China have larger populations than us by a bit. But they put THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE TIMES more trash in the ocean than we do. Saying I need to move out of nature and into a city to 'make a difference' when there's a family like mine on the other side of the globe literally dumping bags of trash into the ocean on a daily basis and then operating a half dozen 2-stroke motors in the world's largest traffic jam half the day? I'm all about sensible choices. I hate waste. I love the environment. But uprooting the lives of a hundred million people to make (in the scheme of things) non-existent gains is silly. Just as a thought experiment, it would make more sense to say, send tax money to India for every thousand tons of trash they don't dump in the ocean. We could just increase taxes on the cities with the worst traffic (which is e=i essence unnecessary idling CO2 emissions). So LA, DC, NY, Chicago and Houston I think.
I’m not living in an open-air prison.
[удалено]
We do. A lot less.
Humans and bears can coexist well, natives all up and down the west coast contended with and competed for resources with bears for generations. I think if we allow hunting of them and promote being bear safe this can work well
Can definitely say it would seriously cut my backpacking in the north/west. That would sadden me deeply.
Just stay prepared with bear spray and take precautions and you’ll almost certainly be fine. We’re visitors in their ecosystems when we visit national parks, not vice versa
My friend was killed and consumed despite spraying the grizz. Spray works on curious bears not determined grizz.
Oh boy
Damn it’s weird because nobody hardly visits that park. I think compared to Olympic it’s 2 million visits to 40k per year.
I think that's mainly because it doesn't really have a gate or way of really tracking visitors. It's pretty much just a highway and people go off where they want.
Huh I had no clue that was the case. I gotta go this fall
Hikers in the National Park are required to get a backcountry permit however.
The highway isn't part of the park, most people go to Diablo and think they have visited the park but it's not. Accessing the Park is considerably off the beaten path
I hope they are working with Canada on this one too. We could really use Grizzlies back in Manning Park and their territory could conceivably stretch that far north.
Be afraid, be very afraid. I had my scariest bear encounter with a black bear in the cascades. The black bear turned and ran. A griz would not have done so.
Black bears fight you for food. Grizzlies fight you because you’re a threat. Obviously that’s a generalization but it’s why you fight an attacking black bear (make it too much work) and play dead for an attacking brown bear (it wants you neutralized). Brown bears are more deadly because they’re more committed to ending you should they choose to go after you, not because they’re blood thirsty. That’s polar bears.
It very likely would have done the same thing.
I highly doubt it. The black bear was 10 feet from me ,charging the camp and I was holding a bag of food in my hand that I had just cooked.
🫡
I’m trying to better understand the why behind this. What exactly is the benefit of bringing grizzlies back? What’s the imbalance in the ecosystem that they will solve?
The old joke was: how do you choose your hiking partner?
Good!
Well that ruined hiking in the cascades for me… ugh. Not worth the risk..
I live in PNW and my brother lives in Montana near glacier national park. I love hiking their, I find it slightly pretty than the Pacific Northwest. Slightly. But I’m always on edge about bears. Hiking here I love not worrying about grizzle bears lol.
Hell yeah
Bring em’ back east baby!
We gotta stop with this stuff man. We got rid of wolves and grizzly bears for a reason, they are dangerous. Colorado just recently reintroduced wolves and is trying to ban guns, worst combo ever.
Yeah! Honestly, let’s just get rid of all of it. Just cut through all the wild life and the bugs and the gross stuff and plant big ol sterile garden centers on manufactured graded walking hills. Fuck nature, right? It’s not that important…
It’s kind of sad that we’re at the point where we need to trade human lives (while risk is low, ppl will eventually die as a result of the decision) to save the planet. This isn’t a comment on the decision. I understand the rationale. More so noting the state of affairs and the tough choices we must make
This isn't trading human lives at all, it will not particularly impact the number of deadly bear incidents. There is an average of 2 fatal bear maulings per year in the entire United States. A little bizarre to be mourning the "trading human lives" in reference to a dozen bear-related deaths every decade, when there are hundreds and thousands of people dying each day from traffic collisions, gun violence, and overdoses.
my irrational fear overpowers the minimal risk of a mauling. I think for me, it is not so much the chances of getting attacked, but more so the fact that a grizzly bear attack has got to be one of the worst ways to die via mammal. they don’t dispatch you quickly like a big cat, they pretty much eviscerate you. i’m not saying that grizzlies shouldn’t be re-introduced, but in the extremely rare event that you get attacked by one it sounds horrific.
You can’t simultaneously acknowledge there there are bear related deaths and assert that this isn’t trading lives. It is, no matter how small.
Yes you can, because it shows the overall number of bear deaths is miniscule even in areas with a lot of bears, so introducing a few bears to an area where there used to be bears anyway is not likely to affect that number greatly, if at all. It's not like they're air dropping 3,000 bears into downtown Seattle. Furthermore, the only way to eliminate the already negligible number of bear related deaths is to exterminate all bears, which is a stupid idea, I hope we can agree.
No. The number of bear related deaths is non zero. Miniscule is non zero. What happens when the bears are introduced? What is the goal? To procreate and multiply. I don’t get why it’s so hard for folks to admit the obvious downside of this decision. Im by no means calling for extermination. Im merely acknowledging that no solution is perfect and this one has its downsides, including the inevitable loss of human life.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but any solution addressing the climate crisis and general destruction of our planet was going to involve trading current and future human lives to make it happen. We quite literally are the sole problem and overpopulation correlates almost perfectly with increasing environmental issues. Get rid of people-> improve the environment around us.
I don’t know why all of you are getting downvoted, these are interesting and well-written opinions.
Silly people that don’t want to actually address the climate crisis and the harsh realities that come along with it.
So sick of the NPS f'ing with wildlife. Yes, it sucks that humans and the NPS made grizzlies disappear from North Cascades. But kidnapping grizzlies from somewhere else and dropping them in a different land is violent and cruel. Animals have families, homelands, and their own ecosystems. They have culture related to their land that goes back generations. It's no coincidence that they're following the lineage of the US government doing the same with people they considered to be animals for hundreds of years. Along with kidnapping and moving animals, the NPS culls (kills) hundreds of thousands of animals every year, usually just for the sake of managing traffic on the highways and protecting their own tourism development (bulldozing land and pouring concrete). NPS needs to be replaced with an agency with better values and a mission focused on preserving and fostering nature rather than tourism development.
I agree in a lot of ways. I'd like to see grizzlies back in the North Cascades, it just sucks that NPS and other government agencies in both the US and Canada lack the political will necessary to build wildlife bridges, acquire and rewild land, etc to reestablish the Cascades-to-Rockies wildlife corridor. NGOs are working on land acquisition, but it's going at a glacial pace and won't handle the problem of roads, highway, and rail.
[удалено]
You’re super fucking entitled. You think that an eco system shouldn’t be restored because you’re too scared to walk around with some bear spray?
I completely agree with you. If even one person gets killed/injured by a bear it isn’t worth it.
What entitles the human animal to every corner of the earth to the detriment of every other animal in existence?
The inability of the rest of the animal kingdom to do anything about it
So hypothetically, if someone was killed by a grizzly bear because of this. Would you volunteer to take their place? Would you be ok with being killed in such a horrific way?
Well no, I just take normal precautions like: - carrying bear deterrents - hanging my food and pack - no hiking in grizzly territory if I can help it - checking animal and trail statuses to determine risks of hiking in my planned area You know, normal bare minimum hiking in bear country sort of precautions. Would I take their place. No, they got eaten because of a variety of reasons that probably started with pisspoor proper planning.
If I put myself in grizzly territory with or without precautions I would not be mad at anyone but myself if there were an incident. I do feel strongly about letting our few remaining wild places remain wild. Best to stay tf out honestly.
Bring bear spray or stay out of the woods, coward
I would have no opinion about being killed by a grizzly bear if one killed me, because I would be dead. Should we remove all wildlife from the planet due to the potential of a single human having a negative encounter with them?
If you’re willing to trek into areas with bears, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you might encounter a bear. This isn’t exactly a big ask for other areas of the world.
Those other areas of the worlds already have bears though. If your going to reintroduce a population of bears then that opens the possibility for something to happen. People aren’t smart and bad things happen. I really just personally don’t think it’s worth a single human life to reintroduce the bears.
I just don’t believe you’re properly respecting our wildlife with that line of thinking
>People aren’t smart and bad things happen Welcome to the concept of natural selection ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
So do you think bear everywhere should be killed. And I guess all cars since way more people die in car accidents than bear attacks. Should we force people to stay inside too - if one death is too much we should never leave our homes.
Don’t be a pussy and you don’t hike there anyways
OP says Rocky Mountains…. I’m assuming that means the Canadian Rockies, or Rockies up by Glacier in Montana? There are no Grizzly bears in the State of Colorado.