| Subject: Research Paper |
Author:
Seth Super
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:24:51 04/13/04 Tue
Should Grizzle bears be introduced to the Pasayten wilderness and in Manitoba Park?
Through history the introduction of foreign animals to a new climate has had disastrous results. I for one see the introduction of grizzle bears to the Pasayten as an introduction that will have disastrous results. For one Grizzle bears have an incredible appetite of at least 80 lbs a day. The desert like climate of eastern Washington can not sustain a creature with such needs. There aren’t enough berries for them to eat, nor are there enough deer, elk, or fish.
The deer population is actually a problem in Okanogan County because of the law that prohibited hunting cougars with dogs. As a result of this law the cougar population exploded and as a result the deer population was devastated. When cougars became a problem, shortly after the last great environmentalist idea became law, they had to hire people and get special permits to hunt them with dogs to keep them out of the playground. Now that this law has been over turned the so called environmentalist want to introduce grizzle bears. Not only is this a problem for the deer population, but it’s a hazard to public safety.
What do you think they will eat? My guess is your dog, your cat, your kids and you. They’ll come out of the mountains in search of food and into your back yard to size you up as a possible meal. Plus when the cattle ranchers start loosing cattle they’ll do the only reasonable thing and protect there herd. If the bears don’t starve to death they will end up getting shot for attacking you and your friends when you’re out on a hike, riding your bike, or maybe just taking a nap in the hammock in your back yard.
The environmentalist mean well thinking there helping these animals, but they all jump on the band wagon and try to make laws without thinking of the results first. The thing I don’t get about environmentalist is there way of thinking. They love nature and want to preserve it, but they’re constantly trying to change it. I don’t think it would be called nature if it wasn’t natural. Do you?
Yes, if you really believe grizzle bears are endangered and want to save them instead of letting nature take its course then do help them. For example if they are starving put your effort into increasing the food supply, but moving them to a place with less food doesn’t make since to me. It seems to me that would do more harm than good. I for one would support or helping them in the places they already exist, but moving them into deserts sounds like a death sentence to me. Who knows maybe that’s what the environmentalist’s want for these problem bears. If other places are having problems with these bears attacking people, pets and livestock what makes you think we want them? I am looking out for not only the safety of humans, but that of the grizzles when I tell you that it’s a bad idea to introduce grizzle bears, or any animal for that matter, to an unnatural environment.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 