Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

Subject: revised research paper Author: Seth Super [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:12:27 04/21/04 Wed Should Grizzle bears be introduced in North Cascades? 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 desert like climate of the North Cascades as an introduction that will have disastrous results. For one Grizzle bears have an incredible appetite of at least 80 lbs a day. The North Cascades can not sustain a creature with such needs. Secondly, Washington already has a ban on importing them. The bears would also be a hazard to public safety. There aren’t enough berries for them to eat, nor are there enough deer, elk, or fish. The climate get very little rain and as a result it lacks sufficient vegetation to sustain much wildlife. The salmon population is another thing environmentalist are trying to protect, and moving grizzly’s in would be disastrous to this project. The dwindling 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. So as you can see there isn’t much in the area that they can eat. In 1995 Washington State senator Bob Morton brought the issue of a ban on importing grizzly bears in Washington to the state legislature. He won with a 35-14 vote. It seems that they knew the consequences of grizzly’s being introduced and decided against it. Now environmentalist want to move the grizzly’s to the north cascades right across the boarder. Being that Grizzly bears are known to travel great distances it seems they are just trying to get around the ban. Grizzly bears being put in an area without food would become a hazard to public safety. What do you think they will eat? My guess is your pets, livestock, 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 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 If the environmentalist really believe grizzle bears are endangered and want to save them instead of letting nature take its course then they should help them. For example if they are starving put your effort into increasing the food supply were they are, but moving them to a place with a lot less food doesn’t make since. That sounds more like a death sentence. The bears they intend to move are problem bears from other areas. If other areas are having problems with these bears attacking people, pets and livestock why would the people in the north cascades want them? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date work sited SethSuper 21:33:18 05/03/04 Mon