No More Grizzlies

[unclebuck]

The key here is sustainable. IF the population is sustainable, yes, hunting/fishing is okay. If the population is NOT sustainable (and leave it to the experts to define this term, not joe public), then the proper management options should be put in place to protect it for future use/generations. Look at Ontario's Aurora Trout. They have made a great comeback, due to great management practices, and now anglers can enjoy. Same with AB grizzlies. All experts (except those affiliated with hunting lobbyists) agree that 1,000 is the key number for a healthy population

 

It seems that 1000 is just a made up number that sounds good. Kind of like 10 - (ie the top ten lists, 10 commandments etc) So far as I know no one did a count of bears back when it was 'sustainable' so estimating these numbers is dodgey at best. 1000 likely means grizzly bears back on the plains.

 

Do we want this? Historically they were more a prairie mammal than a mountain one. They still prefer open meadow to dense bush. Today the grizz range is expanding further east of highway 22, from hiway 3 to 16.( remember the dogpound incident a couple years ago + the crossfield hunter?) More bears in less habitat is not going to happen. They will expand their range east. The historical prime grizzly habitat is the banks of the lower Bow, Red Deer, Batttle and NSR Rivers.

 

Even ranchers with severe gopher problems may not welcome the grizz back to the plains, although this is choice habitat. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Jeffro]

Anyhow, with the new numbers put out recently, we are well below that.

Keep in mind that the new numbers do not include private land or national parks......

 

and 1,000 is an arbitrary number in the grand scheme of things, and any number could be put in place to support either ideal.

[Taco]

765 grizzlies in Montana, 1000 bears is a good targeted number for a Province the size of Alberta

[seanbritt]

Not sure about most of you, but I much prefer science over heresay, even though I back up many of my own arguments with heresay. However, I like to see actual documents when it comes to critical issues, unlike the method of opinion-which is the predominant method of justification on this board.

 

Here is the table from the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) report on how the number 1,000 was generated. For the full report, go here: http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/...tGuidelines.pdf.

 

The report even deals with how to calculate critical population numbers for fisheries.

 

 

 

Table 2.1. Summary of the five criteria (A-E) used to evaluate if a taxon belongs in a

threatened category (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable).

 

Use any of the criteria A-E Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable

 

A. Population reduction Declines measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations

A1 > 90% > 70% > 50%

A2, A3 & A4 > 80% > 50% > 30%

A1. Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of the

reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased based on and specifying any of the following:

(a) direct observation

( an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon

© a decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO) and/or habitat quality

(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

(e) effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.

A2. Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of reduction

may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on any of (a) to (e) under A1

A3. Population reduction projected or suspected to be met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) based

on any of ( to (e) under A1.

A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population reduction (up to a maximum of 100

years) where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the causes of reduction may

not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on any of (a) to (e) under A1.

 

B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (area of occupancy)

B1. Either extent of occurrence < 100 km2 < 5,000 km2 < 20,000 km2

B2. or area of occupancy < 10 km2 < 500 km2 < 2,000 km2

and 2 of the following 3:

(a) severely fragmented or # locations = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10

( continuing decline in (i) extent of occurrence (ii) area of occupancy, (iii) area, extent and/or quality of

habitat, (iv) number of locations or subpopulations and (v) number of mature individuals.

© extreme fluctuations in any of (i) extent of occurrence, (ii) area of occupancy, (iii) number of locations or

subpopulations and (iv) number of mature individuals.

 

C. Small population size and decline

Number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000

and either C1 or C2:

C1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% in 3 years 20% in 5 years 10% in 10 years

up to a maximum of 100 years or 1 generation or 2 generations or 3 generations

C2. A continuing decline and (a) and/or (

(a i) # mature individuals in largest subpopulation < 50 < 250 < 1,000

(a ii) or % mature individuals in one subpopulation = 90-100% 95-100% 100%

( extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals

 

D. Very small or restricted population

Either (1) number of mature individuals < 50 < 250 < 1,000

or (2) restricted area of occupancy na na typically:

AOO < 20km2

or # locations ≤5

 

E. Quantitative Analysis

Indicating the probability of extinction 50% in 10 years 20% in 20 years 10% in 100 years

in the wild to be at least or 3 generations or 5 generations

(100 years max) (100 years max)

 

[Jeffro]

Well some food for thought,

 

Focusing on the ideological numbers set forth by the governing agencies and special interest groups does nothing to solve the issues pertaining to grizzly bears. So if we reach the goal of 1000 do we stop caring about the grizzly or for that matter if we are below 1000 individuals do we focus all our efforts to bring the numbers to 1000 indidviduals. Where does the 1000 individuals make the difference in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that grizzlies are not static and do not conform strictly to any ideals of a formula created by man.

 

did you happen to make it the public consultations regarding the two population studies done recently by chance?