Posted on 07/24/2002 9:56:37 AM PDT by cogitator
"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."
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!
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.
The exclusion of humans for the benefit of grizzly bears who don't even currently live in the area is ludicrous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bullhockey!
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.