You don't even know the name of the government agency that you're claiming is one of the only groups with a reason for wanting grizzlies in Washington. You make the claim that it's because of the funding it will bring. Do you realize that biologists don't get cut a personal check for the work they perform? Your entire shtick is bad faith and straw man arguments and glossing over important details because you don't actually understand anything about what you're trying to say, and you think that you can use "common sense" to prove some kind of a point. Real working professionals laugh at nitwits like you because we can see the shit coming out of your nose and ears.

Here's a bread crumb. Spend some time reading about whitebark pines, Clark's nutcrackers, and grizzlies. Or just keep posting stupid crap, whatever.

Literally everything you've written is a dumb comment. You're a pathetic, scared, troll with a poor understanding of ecology and too much time on his hands. Chickenshit NIMBYism from a fake outdoorsman at its finest.

I guarantee that I spend more time in the woods than you do, and I am absolutely in favor of grizzlies on the landscape. Just admit that you're a fuckin wussy who is scared of encountering a bear. 🤣

The presence of bears will not deter carelessness. It will likely result in human-bear conflict, which almost never ends well for bears.

Have you been there recently?

White Swan. Safety not guaranteed.

I heard a few Smiley campaign ads and couldn't believe that people are stupid enough to fall for that obvious bullshit.

I didn't say anything about human superiority, either. There's no denying that humans have had an impact on the landscape, but it's utterly foolish to believe that we can just expect conditions to get better by doing nothing at all. We've made the mess ourselves, and we can't return to a mythical time where humans didn't have an impact, because those environmental and climatic conditions no longer exist. It is our ethical obligation to the land to manage it to the best of our ability, using scientific data as our foundation. Suggestions otherwise are of no use to those of us actively engaged in the work.

I didn't say anything about religion. Try a Google search on the pristine myth and do some reading before commenting.

It's not all avid hunters, it's just hunters who choose to ignore the science and data. Plenty of hunters love wolves and want to see them on the landscape, myself included. It's also important to note that they were not returned to the state via human introduction, but rather through natural population dispersal.

This topic is a huge pain in the ass because it's so divisive. Take a look at the comment section. Folks love to reference the Yellowstone wolf story but also love to leave out any other environmental factors that led to greater QA regeneration in the GYE. Folks love to spin the lie that WDFW introduced mutant wolves that have been running roughshod through deer and elk herds while simultaneously depleting cattle ranchers of their livelihoods. Others think that it doesn't matter what ranchers want, because they shouldn't be allowed to raise cattle anyway. Some think that wolves on the landscape means that kids will be getting picked off on their way to the bus stop.

There's a middle ground somewhere in this mess, but it's incredibly difficult to get both sides to come to the table when both sides can point to utter bullshit being peddled by the other side.

Sorry for dumping all of this in response to your genuine question. I just can't reply to every comment.

You're espousing what is often referred to as "the pristine myth". Humans have been here, actively managing the land, for thousands of years before European settlement. There is no chance of ever returning to the environmental state that existed before humans stepped foot in the Americas. That world is gone forever, and it doesn't make any ecological sense for humans to just "stay out of it". We're way beyond that point. Any landscape that is affected by human actions requires management. It's silly and unrealistic to think that any good would be done by just locking up vast swaths of land and not allowing any form of use.