New West Publishing LLC
Here at NewWest.net we are excited to be working with the Sustainable Business Council (SBC) on an enhancement to their new Buy Local initiative and our new Buy Local blog.
New West Publishing LLC
To blog or not to blog, that is the question on many businesses minds. Here are the top six reasons your business should have a blog: *…
BridgeMaxx
BridgeMAXX wireless high-speed Internet provides fast, flexible, and affordable service with the right plan to meet your needs. BridgeMAXX uses a wireless modem that transmits radio signals to and from…
Vann's
Common sense says that a business must have customers to survive and the happier your customers, the better your business will do. But apparently common sense isn’t as common as…
Comments
Add your comment below
This is a fair assessment, and I agree that the real issue is the politics, not the science. I understand both, but I fall on the side of science rather than the politics. That, unfortunately, is not the decision made by the National Wildlife Federation or the Wildlife Society, which, as you acknowledge, has many members that work for wildlife management agencies, as opposed to the Society for Conservation Biology, the members of which are mostly academics and independant scientists.
Having been a board member of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and knowing how the NWF does business, there's no doubt in my mind that the NWF has made a deal with the feds in exchange for supporting delisting, and part of that deal was dragging the Wildlife Society into declaring for delisting, when the Wildlife Society generally is loathe to make political declarations. I surely would like to know what the rest of the deal is. Perhaps other readers would also like to know what the NWF agreed to--putting the grizzly bear at great risk.
Living in Fremont County, Wyoming, I am at the epicenter of anti-bear sentiment in the Greater Yellowstone, but it is my considered opinion that it is but a minority here that have taken the radical step of calling for bear free zones outside the so-called Primary Conservation Area. However, it is a powerful minority, and it to this minority that the Wyoming Game & Fish Department has completely capitulated with its bear plan. The fact alone of this capitulation should give people pause in supporting delisting. The State of Wyoming cannot be trusted with bear management, given the politics. (Can't be trusted with wolf management either, not to mention elk management).
There are two points that have yet to be reported in this issue that you should know about. First, Wyoming Statute 23-1-302(a)(ii) gives the WGF Commission the authority to establish areas in which trophy game animals can be treated as predatory animals. When I have asked questions about G&F;intent regarding this statute post delisting, G&F;personnel get uncomfortable and dodge the question. Since technically the grizzly bear is a trophy game animal in Wyoming, post delisting it would take a simple vote of the commission to declare bears predatory animals in the southern Wind River Range and the Wyoming Range and there's nothing anyone could do about it. Then it would be open season on bears with no restrictions whatsoever.
The other point to which no one has paid attention is the presence of the Wind River Indian Reservation, which includes large portions of the central and southern Wind River Range, as well as the Owl Creek Range on the northern boundary of the Reservation. The WGFD has no authority whatsoever over wildlife on the Reservation, and as yet no decision has been made by the Joint Business Council about bear management post delisting. This makes the Reservation a tremendous wild card in the fate of the bear, either to the bear's benefit or its detriment. This is something that "bears" closer examination.
Your reporting on this issue has been excellent. Thank you. Keep up the good work.
Robert
Conservationists shouldn't get too giddy at the prospect of Indians thumbing their noses at cowboys. As big as the reservation is (2.2 million acres), wolf and griz territories are more than likely to be as much off as on the reservation, leaving them exposed to either hunters or predator control agents.
Because my own experience led me to see grizzly conservation in a context including all bear conservation, I'm biased toward the global view.
And there are some downright unfriendly trends afoot, including a climate in the process of what may prove to be a rapid kind of change.
Now, climate science may not seem the kind of science needed to evaluate the status of bears. Sure, we've known for years that polar bears would take some heavy hits, partly by losing their icy hunting platform, but more profoundly be losing their prey -- ringed seals, whose own survival depends on Arctic ice. And now the evidence is rolling in, confirming what many of us knew many years ago.
No bear will escape climate change, because nothing can. And grizzlies will face challenges of several kinds, more than I can detail here. But there are already some red flags waving, including flags of warning for the grizzly's food base.
In 2002, Nature published a review of 97 scientific reports on climate's impact on species. The authors concluded that, although we are only at the very early stages of climatic change now seemingly on a course to last one to three or more centuries, wild species from marine and terrestrial environments and all the way from the subtropics to the polar regions, are -- already -- responding.
For instance, Canadian grizzlies are now moving into areas of the North where they've never been seen. And they're doing it to follow the spread of food sources.
But food sources aren't all spreading, and some key species of high importance to the bear are entering a long-expected era of dieoff. The case of a pine beetle boom killing whitebark pine is a cause celebre in the Yellowstone instance. But that's far from the end of dieoffs that will be affecting the grizzly. For example, at a similar latitude, vaccinium is showing signs of endangerment in Europe, and for reasons driven by changes of temperature and/or precipitation.
This isn't the forum for setting out a complete inventory of how a changing climate will put pressure on wild species, including the grizzly. But the little outfit I work for has been circulating scientific publications to people who want to find out what's afoot for climate and species. So, please, if you have any interest in getting your hands on pdf files of the 2002 Nature article I cited above, feel free to contact me at
And if you need more detail on what the scientific community is expecting climate change to do to wild species, contact me again after you've read the good review of 97 scientific papers in Nature.
And what about de-listing? Given what I know or think I know about bear conservation in general, and the implications of climate change in particular, I think that de-listing would be an exercise in irrational enthusiasm, blind to a world on the cusp of serious change.
Lance Olsen
author, Field Guide to the Grizzly Bear. Sasquatch Books. Seattle. 1992. Revised 1996.
President, Great Bear Foundation 1982-1992 G