Returning grizzlies to the Sierra?

[Jeremy and Angela]

Could much-feared grizzlies hit the comeback trail?

An article in SFGate discusses The Center for Biological Diversity's petition for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to greatly expand their grizzly recovery program. One suggested area is the range from Sequoia & Kings Canyon through to Yosemite.

The local humans, of course, seem a bit concerned at the potential for being back on the menu. I personally think it'd be incredible to see!

[Marko Botsaris]

I have always found it ironic that California has a Grizzly Bear on its flag when they exterminated all of them from the state long ago. Ironic, or typical, I can't decide. If we don't agree to the petition maybe we should be required to change our flag. Might I suggest a rubber duckie instead.

[Bob Gross]

Not only are there zero grizzlies in California, but there aren't any grizzlies in any state contiguous to California. So, all of this is unlikely.

Now, a good animal to try to reintroduce would be the wolverine.

–B.G.–

[Marko Botsaris]

Wolverine on the flag would be awesome!

What ever happen to that supposed photo confirmation of a Wolverine in the Sierras a few years back?

Anyway I'd be in support of a Constitutional amendment forbidding States from using any animal on their flags or other state logos that had been killed off in that state. Until then, maybe this:

[Luke Schmidt]

If we brought legitimately wild grizzlies to the Sierra's they'd probably reduce the local black bear population. That might actually solve some problems. Wild grizzlies that mind their own business might be less of a problem then semi-wild black bears looking for handouts.

Sounds like a cool idea but land managers will need to change too, you can't handle human/grizzly conflicts the way you handle human/black bear conflicts.

[Bob Gross]

"What ever happen to that supposed photo confirmation of a Wolverine in the Sierras a few years back?"

Yes, I believe that it was 2008, and it was an automatic trail camera located just north of Truckee by a few miles. The wolverine was not the target animal, but that's what showed up on the image. The exact location is a secret.

DNA testing showed that the wolverine was not at all related to any wolverine from California, and it was more closely related to one from Idaho or Montana. The big question was what it was doing in California.

–B.G.–

[Jeremy and Angela]

I see in the comments section that while the article got the species name correct for the California grizzly (Ursus arctos californicus), it doesn't mention that genetically they are different from the other North American grizzlies. The reported size figures for the largest California grizzlies were over 2000 pounds!

[Jeremy and Angela]

I like the rubber duckie idea. I wonder what it would take to organize a campaign that could pull it off? The right mix of 4chan and rabid redditors just might have a chance!

[Bob Gross]

Reported sizes are often exaggerated.

I've told them forty million times not to do that.

The largest brown bears that I've seen are the Alaskan Coastal Brown Bears, and their large size comes from their rich diet of sockeye salmon. Bears in other locations simply can't get that many calories.

–B.G.–

[Jeremy and Angela]

Wikipedia notes early settlers claiming to see small herds; I'm wondering if the San Joaquin Valley's warmer climate and plentiful food supply may have encouraged such growth (no need to hibernate, plenty of salmon in the rivers, etc.).

[Billy Ray]

If the grizzlies were in the Sierra now, l would be for protecting them. BUT since they are not, I'd rather not have them introduced. It's nice not having to worry about them.

billy

[Anonymous]

"plenty of salmon in the rivers,"

Not so much anymore, but there are plenty of rug rats and Chihuahuas in back yards to make up the difference. ;0)

[Marko Botsaris]

I've read that on the coast here they ate a lot of whale carcasses, but I believe that was only during the whaling years – apparently lots of discarded parts washed up on the shores and caused a surge in the Grizzly population To hear tell the there were tons of salmon in the rivers here back then as well, but the coastal rivers are pretty small.

I have to do some research to find out if there were any monster Grizillas that resulted locally.

[John Klinepeter]

The book California Grizzly by Storer and Tevis, Jr. gives some reliable figures and some guesses about grizzly size.

Quoting:

The last captive, "Monarch", when killed after a long life in a public zoo where he was underexercised and probably overfed, weighed 1127 pounds. Adams' big captive, "Samson", was several times reported to weigh more than 1500 pounds. One report of 1856 states that a "mammoth grizzly", taken in what is now El Dorado County, afforded no less than 1100 pounds of meat (which yielded the hunter $1375). Of two killed in the hills near Matilija Canyon, Ventura County in September, 1882, it was stated: "The largest…would weigh about 1500 pounds; it was all two strong horses could do to drag it…"

More quoting:

Seton was of the opinion that no true grizzly ever weighed 1500 pounds or that any but the California grizzly reached 1000 pounds; he gave 600 pounds as the average weight for males, and 500 for females.

Exit quoting.

The book has lots of other feature measurements, claws, skulls, etc.

Another book that may be of interest is A Grizzly Introduction to the Santa Ana Mountains by Jim Sleeper.

Moderator: If I am breaking any rules by quoting from the book please feel free to delete this post.

[Author]

Posts