Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: Endangered Species Act Critical to Grizzly Bear Populations
Environmental News Service ^ | 07/23/2002 | Cat Lazaroff

Posted on 07/24/2002 9:56:37 AM PDT by cogitator

Grizzly Team Shows Value of Species Protection Law

WASHINGTON, DC, July 23, 2002 (ENS) - Protection under federal and state law is critical to conserving grizzly bears in the lower 48 states, a new report concludes. The study could offer support for legislation aimed at strengthening the federal Endangered Species Act, and counter arguments for weakening protections for grizzly bears.

The debate over the effectiveness of the 1973 Endangered Species Act ranges from arguments to weaken its protections to making it stronger, but there has been little good evidence for either side. Now new research shows that legal protections are critical to conserving grizzly bears in the contiguous United States.

"This is direct evidence for the dramatic beneficial effect of conservation policies enacted through legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act," write David Mattson of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Colorado Plateau Field Station and Troy Merrill of LTB Consulting, in the August issue of the journal "Conservation Biology."

The grizzly bear is listed as a threatened species in the lower 48 states under the Endangered Species Act. There are about 1,100 grizzly bears in these states, in five separate populations in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington.

To help find the best way to protect grizzly bears, Mattson and Merrill determined factors that correlated with the species' survival since 1850. The researchers considered a variety of factors including the availability of foods such as salmon, bison and whitebark pine trees, which have large seeds that the bears eat. Other factors examined by the team included habitat type and size, the presence of livestock and agriculture, and the density of people in grizzly habitat.

Mattson and Merrill found three factors that strongly correlate with the survival of grizzly bears today: the presence of whitebark pines, large ranges and low human density. One thing these factors have in common is that they help keep grizzlies away from people, who have been the primary cause of the species' decline.

For instance, the bears' survival in areas with whitebark pines may be due to the fact these trees only grow at high elevations and so are far away from most places where people live.

Grizzly bear populations have also been more likely to survive in contiguous ranges that are greater than 7,700 square miles. In 1970, the only populations with more than 200 grizzlies were in the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide recovery areas designated by the Department of Interior, both of which exceed 7,700 square miles.

While the Bitterroot and North Cascades recovery areas also approach this size, they have few if any grizzly bears. The other two recovery areas are smaller than 2,700 square miles.

Grizzly bears have been more likely to survive in areas with few people. Before 1970, grizzly populations were far more likely to survive where the density of people was less than 1.3 per square mile. Today, however, grizzlies are persisting at much higher human densities: about fivepeople per square mile for Yellowstone and eight people per square mile in the Northern Continental Divide recovery area.

Mattson and Merrill attribute the grizzly bears' current survival at higher human densities to legal protections such as the Endangered Species Act.

"Our results show that changes in human attitudes and behavior have been critical to the survival of grizzly bears from 1970 to the present," wrote the researchers.

Without federal protection, grizzlies in the lower 48 states could be looking at a dim future.

Most of the federally designated grizzly recovery areas are smaller or have higher human densities than optimum.

"These results argue for continued stringent protection of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk and North Cascade ranges and high priority restoration of bears in the Bitterroot Range," the researchers said.

In June 2001, in one of her first official acts, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would withdraw a federal plan to reintroduce grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem of Idaho and Montana. The agency had announced plans to reintroduce the bears in November 2000, under the Clinton administration.

Besides arguing that the Interior Department move ahead with the Bitterroot reintroduction, the study by Mattson and Merrill also undermines suggestions that some grizzly populations be removed by the endangered species list.

The Yellowstone grizzly population is doing best and there have been proposals to remove its protections under the Act. However, grizzlies there depend on whitebark pines, which are threatened by a non-native disease called white pine blister rust. The disease has largely eradicated the trees north and west of the Yellowstone ecosystem.

"Such vulnerability ... argues for the inadvisability of removing any legal protections for this [grizzly bear] population," wrote Mattson and Merrill.

The report also supports arguments to maintain the current regulatory powers of the Endangered Species Act, or even to strengthen the law. Congress is now considering two bills, which would have opposite impacts on the Act.

In April, Representatives George Miller of California and Frank Pallone of New Jersey - both Democrats - introduced the Endangered Species Recovery Act (ESRA - HR 4579), which would reauthorize and strengthen the Endangered Species Act.

Environmental groups say the measure would focus on efforts to recover healthy populations of threatened and endangered species so they can be removed from federal listing. It would provide new incentives for private landowners to protect species, and introduce better science into the listing, management and delisting processes, as recommended in a mid-1990s report by the National Academy of Sciences.

"By implementing recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences designed to improve the scientific basis for important endangered species decisions, ESRA makes sure that we use the best science available," said Susan Holmes, policy expert for Earthjustice. "It requires that independent scientists peer review large scale habitat conservation plans; and means that biologists, not politicians are telling us what it will take to recover an imperiled species."

The bill is currently stalled in House Resources Committee, which has requested an executive comment on the measure from the Interior Department, and in the House Ways and Means Committee.

In contrast, a bill to weaken the Endangered Species Act was passed by the House Resources Committee on July 10 with a 22-18 vote, and sent to the full House. The Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2002 (HR 4840) was introduced in May by three Republican Representatives: Jim Hansen of Utah, Richard Pombo of California, and Greg Walden of Oregon.

The bill would legislate what types of science could be used to make decisions under the Act, removing language requiring the use of "best-available science."

"Passage of this bill is an attempt to ensure that the agencies charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act base their decisions on sound, peer reviewed science," Pombo stated after the committee vote. "The Act is failing to protect and recover species, and is a major source of conflict with property owners. We hope this bill begins the process of resolving the shortcomings of the current law."

The day of the House committee vote on HR 4840, an environmental coalition sent a letter opposing the bill, signed by more than 300 scientists, including prominent members of the National Academy of Sciences, to members of Congress. The letter sets forth "principles that need to guide reflection on science and the Endangered Species Act," and calls on Congress to allow scientific data used in endangered species decisions to be "identified and analyzed by scientists free from political pressure and with adequate resources."

"Unless peer review processes and scientific methodologies are defined and managed by scientists, they have no credibility," said Dr. David Blockstein, a leading conservation biologist. "The hallmark of science is an independent search for truth - we all must respect that process and support it."

Nineteen of the nation's largest environmental groups also sent a letter to Congress calling for opposition to HR 4840, calling it a stealth attempt to undermine science and impede implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

"This is nothing but another attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act," said Susan Holmes, legislative representative for Earthjustice. "At a time when many species hover on the brink of extinction and need immediate, scientifically based action to ensure their survival, this legislation would be devastating."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conservation; endangeredspecies; enviralists; grizzlies
Gee, this seems somewhat self-evident:

"Mattson and Merrill found three factors that strongly correlate with the survival of grizzly bears today: the presence of whitebark pines, large ranges and low human density. One thing these factors have in common is that they help keep grizzlies away from people, who have been the primary cause of the species' decline."

1 posted on 07/24/2002 9:56:37 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cogitator
One thing these factors have in common is that they help keep grizzlies away from people, who have been the primary cause of the species' decline."

And one approach to dealing with this is making it impossible for people to live, work or play in areas the EcoNazzis want as Grizzly "habitat." Thus, we "relocate" people out of the area - one way or another. Of course, local human residents don't get to vote on this, because it's all based on "science," don't you see? Surely you understand -NOT!

2 posted on 07/24/2002 10:11:36 AM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
And we want grizzlies in the lower 48 because . . . ?
3 posted on 07/24/2002 10:15:20 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toddst
WHat is your suggestion for saving the bears.....or don't you care that they live.
4 posted on 07/24/2002 10:16:35 AM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
WHy do need racoons? OR ducks? OR snakes? OR deer? OR possum? OR Panthers (Oh..wait the hunters want the panthers for trophies..scratch that one.)
5 posted on 07/24/2002 10:18:04 AM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
...because it makes tenting more exciting.
6 posted on 07/24/2002 10:19:26 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
WHy do need racoons? OR ducks? OR snakes? OR deer? OR possum? OR Panthers (Oh..wait the hunters want the panthers for trophies..scratch that one.)

Well, for one reason, racoons, ducks, snakes deer and possum do not require human depopulation (or prohibition of human settlement) to survive. Besides, none of the animals you mentioned, with the exception of the four poisonous species of snakes in North America, kill humans.

But at least snakes keep the rodent population down. What contribution do the relatively limited numbers of grizzlies make to the eco-system?

I would argue that the price of keeping grizzlies in the lower 48 is too high when considered against the economic costs to humans of the Endangered Species Act -- which essentially gives the government de facto control over every square inch of United States territoty.

Why is it necessary to prevent the extinction of every species on the planet -- especially known human predators -- when species extinction has been a part of the natural order since the first random amino acids evolved into living cells.

Somehow, nature survived the loss of sabre toothed tigers, mammoths and mastodons.

Besides, there are still plenty of grizzlies north of the border.

7 posted on 07/24/2002 10:27:34 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
I live in Idaho. I'm not anxious to have them introduced into my neighborhood. Your backyard is just fine. Frankly, this is just another land grab by the environmentalist nazis. Idaho is already heavily under the thumb of the federal government due to all the current land grabs.

The exclusion of humans for the benefit of grizzly bears who don't even currently live in the area is ludicrous.

8 posted on 07/24/2002 10:29:45 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
What contribution do the relatively limited numbers of grizzlies make to the eco-system?

They're top predators, and omnivores; scavengers par excellence. They clean up the dead and the weak and the excess. I live in Maryland, and we could use a few more top predators around here; deer are a hazard to one's health (on the roads) and one's garden.

9 posted on 07/24/2002 10:37:08 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: toddst
And one approach to dealing with this is making it impossible for people to live, work or play in areas the EcoNazzis want as Grizzly "habitat." Thus, we "relocate" people out of the area - one way or another.

The report seems to indicate that the protected status of grizzlies allows them to live in areas with higher population densities than optimum; i.e., you can't shoot a nuisance grizzly unless he/she is really a nuisance. The wildlife service will attempt to relocate the animals first. However, grizzlies are smart enough to know where food is plentiful and easy to get -- if people don't take care with their food sources, they can make grizzlies into a nuisance in a hurry. So while some number of people can co-exist with grizzlies, the people have to realize that they need to control some factors that would lead to higher grizzly-human interaction. It can be as simple as proper (and prompt) disposal of garbage.

10 posted on 07/24/2002 10:40:53 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maceman; Myrddin
Well...you do have a point about being too expensive (but the way we waste money anyway...) and if we continue to adopt your attitudes we won't have any animals around...there has to be a happy medium. Animals should be allowed to live too.
11 posted on 07/24/2002 10:44:02 AM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
They're top predators, and omnivores; scavengers par excellence. They clean up the dead and the weak and the excess.

But to what extent, and at what cost to human society in the lower 48? The maggots will take care of the dead quickly enough; the weak will likely die on their own.

12 posted on 07/24/2002 10:48:11 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
What is your suggestion for saving the bears.....or don't you care that they live.

The Grizzly is doing quite well in the current habitat areas. Survival isn't the issue, expanding their habitat areas is what the "strengthened" law is all about. These people always want to "reintroduce" animals to areas where they haven't been for some length of time, which IMO isn't realistic or fair to human residents of the areas the "Enviros" propose taking (which is what their proposal amounts to.) They are always pushing the edge of the envelope.

The Grizzly is an amazing animal we need to preserve. However, expanding their habitat territories is simply wrong.

13 posted on 07/24/2002 10:48:56 AM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Well, for one reason, racoons, ducks, snakes deer and possum do not require human depopulation (or prohibition of human settlement) to survive.

Let's introduce them to New York City. We could populate Central Park with them. This would eliminate three problems.... a place for Grizzlies, yuppie joggers and homeless people.

14 posted on 07/24/2002 10:49:12 AM PDT by Blue Screen of Death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
I love all the critters that can live with us. If any animal can get in there and scrap for food and stay out of us humans' way then they are welcome in my world. But if they want to kill or hurt me if I "disturb" them, or if I am part of their food chain....get out!

The whole World is Human habitat.....If any animal cannot or will not live with us, it has to go.

90% of all the animals that have ever lived since the beginning of time are extinct. The World will be just fine without grizzly bears in the lower 48...trust me.

15 posted on 07/24/2002 10:55:44 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
But to what extent, and at what cost to human society in the lower 48? The maggots will take care of the dead quickly enough; the weak will likely die on their own.

It's a fine follow-up, but note that your first question was what contribution grizzlies make to the ecosystem.

If you then want to go into cost-benefit, there are a host of additional questions. An example of what can happen with too many herbivores: spread of unwanted disease is enhanced. Ever hear of brucellosis? Well, a sick bison is a prime candidate for predation. Predators will target them and kill them before they infect a lot of others.

I mentioned one of the problems here out East: too many deer. People have been hurt and killed hitting deer crossing the road, and deer have become a nuisance to both homes and "wild" areas (though what passes for wild here isn't quite as wild as out West).

In essence, the question is one of ecosystem health. If you take out the top predator(s) in any ecosystem, the ecosystem will be out of whack. That can also have detrimental effects on nearby human populations. It's also one of the prime arguments for the reintroduction of wolves in many areas.

16 posted on 07/24/2002 11:05:42 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I mentioned one of the problems here out East: too many deer.

Nothing an extended hunting season can't fix. How effective are grizzlies in culling the deer popularions in the lower 48 anyway?

17 posted on 07/24/2002 11:26:58 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: *Enviralists; madfly; editor-surveyor; Carry_Okie; farmfriend
Index Bump
18 posted on 07/24/2002 11:28:16 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Nothing an extended hunting season can't fix. How effective are grizzlies in culling the deer popularions in the lower 48 anyway?

I wasn't advocating re-introducing grizzlies here (out East). But grizzlies are effective in their habitats. They eat everything and they eat a lot (that's why large ranges are required). We have black bears out here.

But note that the contribution of grizzlies isn't simply for the purpose of herbivore control. It's one reason for them that interacts with human interests. A more esoteric reason is that grizzlies are part of the wilderness. We should help preserve them for the same reason we should protect sharks -- because in a healthy ecosystem, the top predators are both predators and scavengers; they act as controls on "excess" in the ecosystem.

Extended hunting seasons have been tried to cull the deer population around where I live, but it's ineffective because the deer are small and stunted (too many of them!). Birth-control administered at feeding stations or salt licks appears to work better. I should also mention another problem that deer overpopulation brings with it: Lyme disease. Nasty.

19 posted on 07/24/2002 11:36:07 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"Unless peer review processes and scientific methodologies are defined and managed by scientists, they have no credibility," said Dr. David Blockstein, a leading conservation biologist.

Bullhockey!

20 posted on 07/24/2002 11:43:31 AM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
The fight should not be over whether the grizzles need protection or not. Most on this thread have missed the main point. It has to do with the science and who controls it.
21 posted on 07/24/2002 11:46:17 AM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
LOL! Ve scientists shill rool zee vorlt!
22 posted on 07/24/2002 12:15:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
It has to do with the science and who controls it.

Science is probably better left to the scientists. The problem with ecosystem/ecology/conservation biology studies these days is that no matter what the conclusion is, it's bound to conflict with somebody's vested interest.

23 posted on 07/24/2002 12:20:03 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; Carry_Okie; Sungirl
Science is probably better left to the scientists. The problem with ecosystem/ecology/conservation biology studies these days is that no matter what the conclusion is, it's bound to conflict with somebody's vested interest.

You haven't read Carry_Okie's book have you?

24 posted on 07/24/2002 1:17:50 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend; Carry_Okie
You haven't read Carry_Okie's book have you?

No, I haven't. First I've heard of it or that Carry_Okie (in real life) is the author. What does the author say about leaving science to the scientists? (Feel free to chime in, Carry_Okie, provided you can carry the tune ;-)

25 posted on 07/24/2002 1:37:05 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
What does the author say about leaving science to the scientists?

LOL! Too much for this thread. Really. There is one reviewer of the book (Dr. Nielsen) who intends to use it as a source text in her next philosophy of science course because of the way I explain how markets organize research and chunk information into usable output variables.

The most obvious problem with "scientists" is that there is almost no science that is independent, much less accountable for its objectivity. Most of it requires expensive equipment, data collection, and number crunching. That requires grant money. Most grant money comes from government or "charitable" foundations. The latter has become a form of tax-exempt political advocacy. Thus the only accountability becomes the need to please the funding source. Go against that and the peer reviewers will have a fit. I have read way too many papers whose data disagreed with their executive summaries. It's sad.

The essence of the intellectual problem is that pre-college and undergraduate education is so bad and so ideologically socialist that there is a serious lack of what we used to call an education among the professorate (history, philosophy, the Constitution... you know, education). The very nature of post graduate study is also destructive to interdisciplinary knowledge. Thus most of our "experts" are both very narrow and very gullible. The invasion of technical departments by sociologists has made that situation far worse. "Subjective science" has become not only an approved philosophy, but chic. See "deep ecology."

I do a fair amount of research on my own. One of my more interestging recent observations is about the role of light in managing downcut erosion in steep canyons. Such research is practically verboten because of rules governing riparian access. Unfortunately, I could show you how the vegetation management rules advocated by conservation biologists will be enormously destructive to my forest, causing enormous landslides in the name of controlling erosion.

You see, there is no accountability among the professorate for a Type II error. Because of their isolated approaches they have little respect for the risks they take due to errors of inaction...

Should I go on, or should you buy a book? ;-)

26 posted on 07/24/2002 2:14:12 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The most obvious problem with "scientists" is that there is almost no science that is independent, much less accountable for its objectivity. Most of it requires expensive equipment, data collection, and number crunching. That requires grant money. Most grant money comes from government or "charitable" foundations. The latter has become a form of tax-exempt political advocacy. Thus the only accountability becomes the need to please the funding source. Go against that and the peer reviewers will have a fit. I have read way too many papers whose data disagreed with their executive summaries. It's sad.

I'm not a scientist, but I almost was. I was a chemistry undergrad and I tried grad school (UC Berkeley), but I failed out of my P-chem comps. I'm not too good at that kind of math. (I.e., differential equations, which are big in thermodynamics). I took a few geochemistry courses while trying to determine if I could survive in that realm, but ended up down the road (literally) into Silicon Valley to get enough IT training to switch careers and make a living. So I've seen and talked, and worked with (slightly) with some interesting (and skilled) scientists.

I can see what you mean about grant-driven science. In the "hot" climate field, what do you say about scientists that get funding from corporations and corporation associations? It's the same problem doctors face when they get (or got) money to research the health effects of tobacco from tobacco companies.

So it would seem to come down to peer-review, a process that is changing due to the insidious power of the Internet and WWW. Peer-review is supposed to weed out the bad and keep the good, in terms of research publications that end up in journals. So when you say "peer-review" above, is that what you mean, or do you mean review of grant renewals by whoever supplied the money? If the latter, then you have to differentiate between a juried grant process such as that used by the National Science Foundation, or the more insular process that might be practiced by foundations. I can see that the foundations might be unlikely to continue funding someone whose results might be antithetical to their "vision".

The essence of the intellectual problem is that pre-college and undergraduate education is so bad and so ideologically socialist that there is a serious lack of what we used to call an education among the professorate (history, philosophy, the Constitution... you know, education). The very nature of post graduate study is also destructive to interdisciplinary knowledge. Thus most of our "experts" are both very narrow and very gullible. The invasion of technical departments by sociologists has made that situation far worse. "Subjective science" has become not only an approved philosophy, but chic. See "deep ecology."

It would appear that depends on the field. I didn't see this in the hard[er] sciences. I think I understand that if a field such as population biology is invaded by someone interpreting the results in terms of their impact on Gaia, then this type of contamination could occur. At the same time, the UC Berkeley chemistry profs seemed primarily to know lots about chemistry and much less about other subjects.

I do a fair amount of research on my own. One of my more interestging recent observations is about the role of light in managing downcut erosion in steep canyons. Such research is practically verboten because of rules governing riparian access. Unfortunately, I could show you how the vegetation management rules advocated by conservation biologists will be enormously destructive to my forest, causing enormous landslides in the name of controlling erosion.

I believe you could, but I don't understand what you mean by light to manage downcut erosion -- my guess is that you need enough light penetration to allow the ground cover to grow and stabilize the land surface. Close?

You see, there is no accountability among the professorate for a Type II error. Because of their isolated approaches they have little respect for the risks they take due to errors of inaction...

You didn't define what you mean(t) by Type I and Type II errors.

I unfortunately don't think I'd have time to read your book and do it justice. I have three toddlers at home (timing is everything). I'm lucky if I finish the Sunday paper by Tuesday. But I'd be willing to continue the conversation if you're willing to educate me. If not, I can understand demands on your time as well.

27 posted on 07/24/2002 2:41:36 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

So when you say "peer-review" above, is that what you mean, or do you mean review of grant renewals by whoever supplied the money?

Neither. I mean that the peers understand who gives the money and what they want. They end up with selective vision as a group, believing what they study in isolation, forgetting the bigger picture. They become resistant to whomever might disturb the applecart. It's because of the funding source and the adulation they get for the "correct" conclusions.

I think I understand that if a field such as population biology is invaded by someone interpreting the results in terms of their impact on Gaia, then this type of contamination could occur.

Think about who has the big impacts in species listings. More of a problem are the recommended prescriptive means which almost always rely upon preservation as a solution. It often doesn't work for reasons I detail in the book.

You didn't define what you mean(t) by Type I and Type II errors.

LOL! That was a test (to see if you were really a scientist). Given your comment, I see that it was unnecessary. Sorry, but I hate fakes enough that sometimes I think it necessary.

A Type I error is the false acceptance of the alternative hypothesis, in this case, that nature requires active management by people. The view of most environmental preservationists is that this is not true.

The Type II error is the false acceptance of the null hypothesis that nature will function best if left alone. This is demonstrably false in the presence of introduced exotic species. It is also ignorant of the fact that an interface with humans will always be there and will always require management. Of course, those in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement would argue that there is a simple fix to that one...

Among statisticians, the Type II error is the more egregious. With a Type I error you eventually find out your mistake. Fail to test a hypothesis further because of a Type II error and you may never learn your mistake.

28 posted on 07/24/2002 3:05:01 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: toddst
The Grizzly is an amazing animal we need to preserve. However, expanding their habitat territories is simply wrong.

What about maintaining the territories they have now. I'll bet you won't care if that keeps dwindling.

29 posted on 07/24/2002 4:11:48 PM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: B.O. Plenty
You have a very selfish attitude towards animals.
30 posted on 07/24/2002 4:13:36 PM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
You have a very selfish attitude towards animals.

And you seem to have this strange obsession with them.

31 posted on 07/24/2002 4:49:38 PM PDT by Uncle Meat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Meat
Thanks to you guys ....it does seem like I defend them alot doesn't it. I have only recently seen how many people have the wrong attitude towards animals (which is dangerous)...and I guess I have to do what I can change it.

ANIMAL ABUSE/HUMAN VIOLENCE

Russell Weston Jr., tortured and killed 12 cats: burned and cut off their tails, paws, ears; poured toxic chemicals in their eyes to blind them; forced them to ingest poison, hung them from trees (the noose loose enough to create a slow and painful death.) Later killed 2 officers at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.

Jeffery Dahmer staked cats to trees and decapitated dogs. Later he dissected boys and kept their body parts in the refrigerator. Murdered 17 men.

Kip Kinkle shot 25 classmates (killing several) in Springfield, Oregon. He killed his father and mother. He said he blew up a cow once, set a live cat on fire and dragged the innocent creature through the main street of town. Classmates rated him as "Most Likely to Start WWIII."

As a boy, Albert De Salvo, the "Boston Strangler," placed a dog and cat in a crate with a partition between them. After starving the animals for days, he removed the partition to watch them kill each other. He raped and killed 13 women by strangulation. He often posed bodies in a shocking manner after their murders.

Richard Allen Davis set numerous cats on fire. He killed all of Polly Klaus' animals before abducting and murdering Polly Klaus, aged 12, from her bedroom.

11-year-old Andrew Golden and 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson tortured and killed dogs. On March 24, 1998, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Golden and Johnson shot and killed 4 students and 1 teacher during a fire drill at their school.

After 16-year-old Luke Woodham mortally stabbed his mother, killed 2 classmates and shot 7 others, he confessed to bludgeoning his dog Sparkle with baseball bats and pouring liquid fuel down her throat and to set fire to her neck. "I made my first kill today," he wrote in his court-subpoenaed journal. "It was a loved one...I'll never forget the howl she made. It sounded almost human." In June 1998, Woodham was found guilty of 3 murders and 7 counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to 3 life sentences and an additional 20 years for each assault.

Theodore Robert Bundy, executed in 1989 for at least 50 murders, was forced to witness a grandfather who tortured animals. Bundy later heaped graves with animal bones.

At 4-years-old, Michael Cartier dislocated the legs of rabbits and hurled a kitten through a closed window. He later shot Kristin Lardner 3 times in the head, before shooting himself.

Henry Lee Lucas killed numerous animals and had sex with their corpses. He killed his mother, common law wife, and an unknown number of people.

Edward Kemperer cut up 2 cats. He later killed his grandparents, mother, and 7 other women.

Richard Speck threw a bird into a ventilator fan. He later killed 8 women.

Randy Roth taped a cat to a car's engine and used an industrial sander on a frog. He killed 2 of his wives and attempted to kill a third.

David Richard Davis shot and killed 2 healthy ponies, threw a wine bottle at a pair of kittens, and hunted with illegal methods. He murdered his wife, Shannon Mohr Davis, for insurance money.

Peter Kurten, the Dusseldorf Monster, tortured dogs, and practiced bestiality while killing animals. He murdered or attempted to murder over 50 men, women and children.

Richard Trenton Chase, "The Vampire Killer of Sacramento," bit the heads off birds, drained animals for their blood, killed animals for their organs, and later killed 6 people in random attacks. One police officer present at the scene of the first murder, confessed to having nightmares about the crime for months afterwards.

Richard William Leonard's grandmother forced him to kill and mutilate cats and kittens when he was a child. He later killed Stephen Dempsey with a bow and arrow. He also killed Ezzedine Bahmad by slashing his throat.

Tom Dillion murdered people's pets. He shot and killed Jamie Paxton, aged 21; Claude Hawkins, aged 49; Donald Welling, aged 35; Kevin Loring, aged 30; and Gary Bradely, aged 44.

At 9-years-old, Eric Smith strangled a neighbor's cat. At 13, he bludgeoned 4-year-old Derrick Robie to death. Smith lured the little boy into the woods, choked him, sodomized him with a stick, then beat him to death with a rock.

David Berkowitz, "Son of Sam," poisoned his mother's parakeet out of jealousy. He later shot 13 young men and women. 6 people died and at least 2 suffered permanent disabilities.

Arthur Shawcross repeatedly threw a kitten into a lake until the kitten drowned from exhaustion. Killed a young girl. After serving 15-1/2 years in prison, he killed 11 more women.

Michael Perry decapitated a neighbor's dog. He killed his parents, infant nephew and 2 neighbors.

Jason Massey¹s killing resume began with cats and dogs; at 20 he decapitated and disemboweled a 13-year-old girl and fatally shot a 14-year old boy. He claims to have killed 37 cats, 29 dogs and 6 cows.

Patrick Sherrill stole neighborhood pets, tethered them with baling wire and encouraged his dog to mutilate them. He killed 14 co-workers and himself in 1986.

Keith Hunter Jesperson, "Happy Face Killer," bashed gopher heads and beat, strangled and shot stray cats and dogs. He is known to have strangled 8 women. He said: "You're actually squeezing the life out of these animals...Choking a human being or a cat--it's the same feeling...I'm the very end result of what happens when somebody kills an animal at an early age."

Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985 for an alleged 35 murders and reputed to be one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history, confessed that his first act of violence was to strangle a puppy under the porch of his house.

Robert Alton Harris murdered two 16-year-old boys, doused a neighbor with lighter fluid and tossed matches at him. His initial run-in with police was for killing neighborhood cats.

32 posted on 07/24/2002 5:02:51 PM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
Damn,you got me pegged as a serial killer!I suppose they all started out as GASP ,HUNTERS!
33 posted on 07/24/2002 5:18:12 PM PDT by Uncle Meat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
What about maintaining the territories they have now. I'll bet you won't care if that keeps dwindling.

It would be a good thing to protect their current territories, educate people who move in so they understand what works and hear those behaviors that place both Grizzlys and people in danger. What doesn't make sense is attempting to expand Grizzly territories. Does this satisfy you?

34 posted on 07/24/2002 6:36:50 PM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
Oh I do love animals....so much in fact that I belong to P.E.T.A...People Eating Tasty Animals. (grin)

Serious...I do have a selfish attitude toward animals. I want them to stay out of my habitat if they are unfriendly....And moreover, I don't want a bunch of animal rights whackos taking my property without buying it and giving it to a bunch of worthless animals.

We have the golden cheeked warbler(a worthless bird) here in Texas. They supposedly live in cedar trees sooo...the Texas whackos have taken over a bunch of land on which grows ceader trees from a woman who lives near Austin....now her land is worthless, just like the bird that allegedly lives on her land. I drove down that way a couple of years ago and everywhere I went I saw fields that had great piles of bulldozed cedar trees. The owners, I can only guess, were performing a pre-emptive strike on the golden cheeked warbler(worthless bird).

35 posted on 07/24/2002 7:36:55 PM PDT by B.O. Plenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson