3 ms·

"but it left out the fact that these bears are just getting less afraid of humans in general as interaction increases." Isn't it also possible, that the intera

"but it left out the fact that these bears are just getting less afraid of humans in general as interaction increases." Isn't it also possible, that the interactions are increasing, because simply more people (without a clue) are going into bear territory? Otherwise yes, the bears should not forget to avoid humans.

COGlory 3y ago
Yes and no. While more people are going outside than ever before, the places that they're encountering grizzlies are places no grizzlies have been sighted in 80-100 years. When I first moved to where I live now, there were (and still are obviously) three mountain ranges. Two of them were commonly regarded as grizzly free. Not anymore.
dogman144 3y ago
Sort of disagree. Their territory is more so very remote wilderness than urban/rural borders.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Yes, but adventure and wilderness is en vogue and I don't have any numbers, but I think the people trying out the wilderness is way higher than 50 years ago. In general I think it is a good thing, but the wilderness is not a wild park.
  - dogman144 3y ago
    Nobody is coming out to these wildernesses but yes that might change. There’s a big jump b/t National parks and hiking around Denver vs the designated wilderness areas where the bears are - Washakie, Absaroka/Bearooth, Bridger, etc. Locals and big game expeditions are common but it’s 2 hrs on a forest service road after 2 hours on US Highway after flying into a Regional airport connected from Denver to get out there. Yellowstone thankfully absorbs a ton of visitor traffic as well. Additionally, especially after urban Montana and CO’s challenges paired with existing ranch power, these areas aren’t getting developed any time soon. There’s a wall of public land and ranches surrounding the bear areas, in short. Yellowstone has bears but the risk areas where you’re legitimately entering their space are in the designated wildernesses.

COGlory 3y ago

Yes and no. While more people are going outside than ever before, the places that they're encountering grizzlies are places no grizzlies have been sighted in 80-100 years. When I first moved to where I live now, there were (and still are obviously) three mountain ranges. Two of them were commonly regarded as grizzly free. Not anymore.

dogman144 3y ago

Sort of disagree. Their territory is more so very remote wilderness than urban/rural borders.

hutzlibu 3y ago
Yes, but adventure and wilderness is en vogue and I don't have any numbers, but I think the people trying out the wilderness is way higher than 50 years ago. In general I think it is a good thing, but the wilderness is not a wild park.
- dogman144 3y ago
  Nobody is coming out to these wildernesses but yes that might change. There’s a big jump b/t National parks and hiking around Denver vs the designated wilderness areas where the bears are - Washakie, Absaroka/Bearooth, Bridger, etc. Locals and big game expeditions are common but it’s 2 hrs on a forest service road after 2 hours on US Highway after flying into a Regional airport connected from Denver to get out there. Yellowstone thankfully absorbs a ton of visitor traffic as well. Additionally, especially after urban Montana and CO’s challenges paired with existing ranch power, these areas aren’t getting developed any time soon. There’s a wall of public land and ranches surrounding the bear areas, in short. Yellowstone has bears but the risk areas where you’re legitimately entering their space are in the designated wildernesses.