| Subject: Exploratory Essay |
Author:
Seth Super
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:02:17 06/02/04 Wed
Should Grizzly bears be introduced in the North Cascades?
There is currently a Canadian recovery plan for grizzly bears in the North Cascades. They want to introduce 30 grizzly’s and have the population up to 150 by the year 2050. The Canadians say there are less than 25 grizzly bears in the 9807 km area; however I haven’t seen any evidence or heard of any sightings of grizzlies in the area since the 1800’s. The Canadians believe they can increase tourism and help the bears by putting them in the north cascades. Their plan has upset some Washington State lawmakers who fear the Grizzly Bears will attack people. There are many problems with this plan these include Washington State law, the safety of the bears, people in the area, livestock and many other issues that I will discuss.
In 1995 Washington State senator Bob Morton brought the issue of a ban on importing grizzly bears in Washington to the state legislature. “To rural landowners, recovery of predatory wildlife means invasion of orchards and livestock, and likely personal safety concerns,” said Morton. He won with a 35-14 vote and it was made illegal to introduce them in Washington. It seems that the lawmakers knew the consequences of grizzly’s being introduced and decided against it. Now environmentalists want to move the grizzlies 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 Washington State law.
The Senate has passed a petition urging British Columbia to drop its reintroduction program near the U.S. border in the North Cascades. They want Canadian officials to make sure the reintroduction program stays many miles away from the border to prevent the bears from causing problems in Washington. The petition called Senate Joint Memorial 8004 was Morton’s efforts to ease the blow he believes the reintroduction of grizzly bears will have on area residents. Senate Joint Memorial 8004 asks the province of British Columbia to refrain from releasing grizzly bears where their range is likely to extend into Washington State. The Senate's memorial passed in the House committee by an 8-1 vote. Now Washington State law prohibits introduction of grizzly bears to unsuitable areas. “Northeast Washington is not a suitable area for the reintroduction of grizzly bears,” said Morton. “There are major questions about sustainability and major concerns over safety.”
Grizzly bears usually weight between 350 to more than 1500 pounds and are around 4-5 ft tall when on all four legs. They feed on flowers, berries, sedges and grasses, tubers, herbs, corms and roots, various nuts, fish, small sea animals, insects, honey, ground squirrels, deer, caribou, and moose. They consume 1/3rd of their body weight a day in the 6-8 weeks leading up to hibernation. To give you an example a 600 pound bear would have to eat 200 pounds of food a day. Sen. Morton said “data from Washington State University professor Charles Robbins shows the Washington state side of the North Cascades does not have enough food to support the bears. In order to fulfill their appetite they would have to find alternative sources of food and the Canadians aren’t planning on bringing food out to the grizzlies.
Good habitat for the bears include open meadows, grasslands, river valleys, plentiful cover, and mountain forests and around lakes, streams and rivers. In the North Cascades people already inhabit all of these areas that I know of. The North cascades is not what I would call a lush area it is more a desert like place, so where they’ll be able to find enough food to satisfy their appetite I don’t know. There’s obviously not enough vegetation to sustain them. The deer population is already suffering from the law that banned hunting cougars with dogs. That measure increased the cougar population drastically and when the number or predators goes up the number of prey will always go down. The grizzlies would further deplete the deer population. The population of salmon is already low and the recovery of grizzly bears would crush all efforts of salmon recovery in the state. Moose and elk are also rare, so I don’t know what the Canadians figure will sustain the bear’s appetite for meat.
As I see it the bears wouldn’t remain in the mountains, but instead would travel to their preferred habitat around lakes, valleys, grass land, etc… to escape starvation. These areas are full of orchards and farms. The bears would most likely prey on pets, livestock, people, and orchards. Human interaction with predators usually causes problems. Morton argues that “the grizzly’s quest for food will lead them to grazing livestock and area orchards.” The orchards are already in trouble. After the apple market crashed a few years ago a lot of farmers in the area had to tear out there crops and replant other crops. Many simply went out of business. The bears would see the orchards that do remain as an easy meal and as a result be a disaster to the farmer’s source of income. The Ranchers also make a living in the area. Unleashing a creature like a grizzly bear near the areas used for livestock to graze sounds like a death sentence not only to the cattle, but to the bears as well. Imagine that you’re a rancher and something was repeatedly killing your cattle. Most likely you would protect you cattle by taking out the threat.
The bears they plan to introduce are problem bears from other areas. When a predator begins to do things such as kill pets and livestock or worse yet people it becomes labeled as a problem animal. I don’t know about you, but whenever I hear about problem animals I think of the fact that they are usually put down (killed). It was outlawed to hunt cougars with dogs a few years ago. When the cougar population grew and cougars started going into back yards in search of food they had to hire people to put them down, until finally deciding to reverse the ban on using dogs to hunt them. This helped to keep the cougar population in balance. The bears they plan to introduce have already been a nuisance to people in other areas. I understand that Grizzly bears are an endangered species and they don’t want to put them down, but putting them in an area where they will most likely repeat the acts that made them a problem in the first place doesn’t make since to me.
There are also issues with the bears even if by some miracle they do stay in the mountains. The North Cascades are a beautiful attraction of Washington’s that attracts hikers, skiers, and many more outdoor enthusiasts. Many people enjoy camping, hiking, rafting, hunting and many more recreational activities in the North Cascades. The North Cascades is highly populated with Outfitters and Guides who use the area to make a living and to bring money to the poverty struck northern counties. In some areas ranchers, yeah the people that put the meat on your dinner table, utilize the north cascades for summer grazing. In short the North Cascades is a pretty awesome place and I don’t know why any one would want to compromise the areas safety by introducing such a predator with such great demands.
There are areas that the Canadians are already using as grizzly bears recovery areas and I don’t see why they need to put them in this particular area. On their recovery plan they show the current range of the grizzlies and the population of the bears in different areas. The area they are proposing to introduce the bears show little to no bears in the area: however areas farther north were it wouldn’t be a problem for people in Washington state show quite a bit of bears and also better habitat.
Their plan “Recovery Plan for Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades of British Columbia” is on the Internet under http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/ncgb_rp0101.pdf. The plan, 56 pages long, has a lot of confusing charts, graphs, and information. I find their proposal hard to follow and very long and drawn out, but who knows maybe you’ll be able to follow it. I encourage you to take a look at it and see if you can find the answers to some of the questions I brought up or some of your own. I would like to know what they plan for the bears to eat. I would also like to know what they plan to do about the public safety hazard the bears present.
You see there are many reasons to preserve the way the north cascades are right now. Through my research I saw how the bears would cause a lot of problems. Putting grizzlies in the north cascades would be a hazard to public safety and that of the bears and would also make some of the problems the area already has even worse. Hopefully the Canadians will reconsider before we end up having a huge problem on our hands.
Works cited
Friederich, Steven. (2003). Keep Canadian grizzly bears north of border, lawmakers say
Seattle Post. Retrieved 5-17-04, from http://www.com.washington.edu/journalism/olympia/friederich/friederich_grizzly.html
North Cascades Grizzly bear Recovery Team. (2001). Recovery Plan for Grizzly Bears in Then North Cascades of British Columbia. Retrieved 5-15-04 from http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/ncgb_rp0101.pdf
Unknown. (2003). Morton says predatory wildlife reintroduction frightening for northeastern Washington residents. SRC Media Center/Breaking News. Retrieved 5-17-04 from
http://www.src.wa.gov/News2003/MortonPR022603.htm
Unknown. (2000). Grizzly bear. Natureworks. Retrieved 5-20-04 from http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/grizzly.htm
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 