Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

Tag Archives: grizzly

Losing my lust for hunting, thanks to The Bear

Posted on by
1

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-06-losing-my-lust-for-hunting-thanks-to-the-bear

Recently, I watched a rather delightful film called The Bear. I’d not heard of it before until a friend told me how it was a childhood favourite of his. (His film taste is usually worth listening to.) Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud of Seven Years in Tibet and The Name of the Rose fame, The Bear isn’t like most other animal-themed films. It’s far more nuanced than it first appears to be. A live action tale (with a mixture of animatronic bears and real ones), it follows the story of an orphaned bear cub in late 19th century British Columbia, as he tries to survive, pitting himself against nature and some rather determined hunters.

It’s utterly charming and makes me smile just thinking about it, but it’s also quite nasty in places. Hunting dogs are used (and yes, a dog versus a bear doesn’t go brilliantly), bearskins are everywhere, and you even see two bears have sex in the distance. That kind of stuff never happened in The Lion King. You see hunters torment animals and, just when you think the human threat is gone, a cougar comes along to remind you that nature itself can be very cruel too. However, it’s beautifully shot and the bear cub is adorable, if clearly soon to be quite a threatening beast once he grows up. The film uses very little dialogue and hardly any music. Yet you hardly notice any of that because the film is so elegantly put together. The exposition is there for you to see rather than hear.

What has this got to do with games? Well, the day after I watched The Bear, I went to load up Red Dead Redemption 2 for a bit, and soon felt rather terrible. I needed to go hunting – to shoot at a bear or two and skin them. Suddenly it felt a little bit too real, as daft as that may sound. Sure, I’ve killed what must be hundreds of thousands of ‘people’ in games by now but the more I think about it, the more I’ve realised I feel quite uncomfortable about killing an animal in a game. Which is utterly irrational, I know.

thebearrdr2

Many quests and locations in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey involve killing animals. Wandering into their caves and killing them while they sleep for the sake of a pelt and a few extra experience points. How would I feel about that post-The Bear? I remember feeling terrible a few days back when I was playing World of Warcraft. I was in the woodland-ish zone of Darkshore and had to kill bears for some pelts. Just as I’d downed one adult bear, a small bear cub came bounding over and stood next to his deceased mother looking a bit lost. Thoughts of The Bear and his little face as he was orphaned come flooding back, and I don’t care how much of a snowflake it makes me sound.

It’s a weird idea that I’m fine killing virtual people but not animals, so I thought I’d search around to figure out why I and other people are like this. Looks like it’s a mixture of two things. Supposedly, there’s a concept known as ‘collapse of compassion’. Essentially, this means that the more deaths that occur in one incident, the less we seem to care. You’ll notice this happening in the news a lot (albeit not exclusively). One person dies in a freak car accident? Ohh, the horrors as we learn all about where they were driving to and how much family they had. 30 people die in a landslide? It’s too much, somehow, to get your head around in quite the same way. Names and details matter a lot in this, which I guess is why naming animals generally has an effect on our affection for them.

ACO

There’s also the matter that we innately think of animals as innocent or helpless. This isn’t actually always the case. A 9 foot tall Kodiak bear like Bart who features in The Bear is far from helpless when faced against scrawny little me, but it would be different if I had a large rifle and knew how to use it. He is pretty innocent though, merely trying to go about his business. That business in The Bear happens to be helping a bear cub get around in the world, with an occasional pitstop to woo a female bear by tearing a sapling out of the ground to impress her. Who could begrudge him such pleasures? Well, hunters.

Realising I’d lost my fairly limited bloodlust for hunting in games, I thought a nice gentle game of Never Alone might be better for me. Just me – a little Iñupiaq girl – and her arctic fox companion as we traipse through the Alaskan landscape together. No suffering or killing. Oh, except for when I screw up and my fox friend falls to his death. Or I flee from a polar bear and the bear falls into icy water to his inevitable demise. On second thoughts, maybe I just need to stick with match-three games and FIFA.

Time to put a stop to B.C.’s grizzly bear hunt

Posted on by
2

. <http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/439898323.html#storyComments>
0
. <http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/439898323.html>

.
Aug 11, 2017

Grizzly bears are very important to me and, as the polls show, are very
important to a large majority of British Columbians.

I believe NDP Premier John Horgan and Green leader Andrew Weaver made
statements opposing the grizzly bear trophy hunt and in acknowledgement of
the importance grizzly bear to the ecology and economy of British Columbia.

In 2001, the NDP government implemented a moratorium on grizzly bear
hunting, but it was overturned after the B.C. Liberals took office.

In the 2017 provincial election, NDP and Green candidates pledged support to
ban the B.C. grizzly bear trophy hunt.

I am part of the very large majority of British Columbians who applaud this
position and who did not imagine that we would be waiting with bated breath
to hear an announcement from the NDP government to immediately ban this
hunt.

Grizzly bears continue to be hunted for no good reason, despite the fact
that tourism revenue is far greater than that from grizzly bear trophy
hunting.

I believe, as most British Columbians believe, protecting our wildlife is a
smart investment in the future.

Ronda Murdock

Parksville

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/439898323.html

<http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/439898323.html>

<http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/439898323.html> BCLocalNews.com – Time
to put a stop to B.C.’s grizzly bear hunt

http://www.bclocalnews.com

Grizzly bears are very important to me and, as the polls show, are very
important to a large majority of British Columbians.

Data reveals more than 300 B.C. grizzlies killed by hunters yearly

Posted on by
3

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/more-than-300-bc-grizzly-bears-killed-by-hunters-yearly-david-suzuki-data/article34550355/

by WENDY STUECK

VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Mar. 31, 201

Nearly 14,000 grizzly bears have been killed in B.C. since the government started tracking mortality records for the species in 1975, the vast majority by hunters, according to provincial data compiled by the David Suzuki Foundation.

Of those bears – an estimated 329 each year – 87 per cent have been killed by licensed hunters, with other kills attributed to causes including the shooting of problem bears by conservation officers, illegal poaching and collisions with cars and trains.

A total of 13,804 grizzly bears have been killed by humans from 1975 to 2016, the group says.

 The Suzuki foundation provided the data to The Globe and Mail ahead of the opening on Saturday of the province’s controversial trophy grizzly-bear hunt. The governing Liberal party has defended the hunt and resisted calls to shut it down. With the Opposition NDP opposed to the hunt, the issue will likely arise during the spring election campaign.

The figures, compiled from the B.C. Compulsory Inspection Database, show a relatively consistent number of grizzly bears killed each year over the past four decades, with the exception of a dip in 2001, when there was a moratorium on the grizzly-bear hunt.

(The database consists of information submitted by hunters through required inspections for certain species, including grizzly bears.)

The figures also indicate that, on average, 34 per cent of grizzly bears killed each year are female – a percentage that worries some conservationists and is one element in a public debate over whether the hunt should be banned.

“Despite being a large, dominant animal, grizzlies are among the most threatened large species on the continent,” Faisal Moola, director-general of the Suzuki foundation, said on Friday.

Because female grizzly bears reproduce later in life and have a small number of cubs that survive, the species is vulnerable to decline if too many female bears are taken out of the population, he said.

“The ability of a population to rebound, or bounce back, from a period of hunting, is wholly dependent on the success of those female bears to continue to reproduce and replenish the population,” Dr. Moola said.

The province estimates the grizzly population in B.C. at 15,000 – about one-quarter of the population in North America. Of 56 bear “population units” in B.C. – geographic areas based on habitat and natural boundaries – nine are classified as threatened.

But conservation groups say that figure overestimates the health of the grizzly population.

The Liberal government maintains that the grizzly-bear hunt is sustainable, based on sound science, and tightly regulated.

If hunters take more than 30 per cent of female bears, “hunting opportunities are reduced or that unit is closed to hunting,” the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations said on Friday in a statement.

There is significant opposition to the hunt, including from First Nations that see greater economic opportunity in bear-viewing.

There is also debate over whether sanctioned hunts could put further pressure on population units deemed to be threatened.

The province refused to provide spatial data on individual grizzly kills unless the Suzuki foundation agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement, which it declined to do, Dr. Moola said.

Without that information, the group was unable to determine whether grizzly bears are being killed in parks or protected areas or in local populations where over-hunting has occurred in the past, he said in an e-mail.

Kill locations of grizzly bears are “considered sensitive information and not released publicly,” the ministry said. “The province fully supports ensuring the long-term sustainability of Grizzly bear populations, and the protection of seasonally-critical habitats is a significant part of conservation efforts,” the ministry added.

Grizzly-bear hunting is not allowed in areas where conservation is a concern. Last September, the B.C. Auditor-General’s office included grizzly-bear management in its list of planned projects to determine “whether government is meeting its objective of ensuring healthy grizzly bear populations throughout B.C.”

Congress Rolls Back Obama-Era Rule On Hunting Bears And Wolves In Alaska

Posted on by
5

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska

March 22, 20171:09 PM ET

A pair of brown bears play in a pond at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage Glacier, Alaska, in 2009.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

By a largely party-line vote Tuesday, the Senate approved a bill that repeals Obama-era hunting restrictions on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. The House already voted last month to abolish those restrictions — which were instituted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2016 to protect predator species from hunters — and so the bill now heads to the desk of President Trump, who is widely expected to sign it.

The FWS rule facing repeal explicitly prohibited many kinds of “predator control” on the 16 federally owned refuges in Alaska. That prohibition included a ban on the aerial hunting, live trapping or baiting of predators such as bears and wolves — as well as killing those predators while near their dens or their cubs.

Alaska Rep. Don Young, the Republican sponsor of the bill passed Tuesday, says these restrictions represented federal overreach.

“Not only does this action undermine Alaska’s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands,” Young said, “it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.”

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, also representing Alaska, echoed those concerns Tuesday, saying the restrictions changed the state’s relationship with FWS “from one of cooperation to subservience,” The Associated Press reports.

“This rule is about Alaska,” he said.

Others, like Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, were not convinced.

“This isn’t about states’ rights,” she said, according to the wire service. “It’s not about prohibiting hunting. … It’s about how we can manage these wildlife refuges to the degree that agencies believe are necessary for the preservation of these wildlife heritage areas.”

As the Alaska Dispatch News points out, this debate gets to the core of a long-running dispute:

“At the heart of the disagreement between state and federal wildlife managers is what each group thinks should guide its purpose. The federal government has argued that the goal on refuges and in parks should be biodiversity. The state Board of Game has an interest in ensuring maximum sustained populations for hunting.”

Ensuring the “maximum sustained populations” of commonly hunted prey species like elk, moose and caribou often means reining in the populations of their predators — namely, bears and wolves. In the 2016 restrictions, federal regulators argued that the Alaskan Board of Game had gone too far in prioritizing the populations of prey species over predators.

It was an argument pursued by several Democratic senators, including New Jersey’s Cory Booker, and environmental groups who were opposed to the rollback.

“This isn’t hunting — it’s slaughter,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “Killing wolves and bears in this cruel, unsportsmanlike fashion is outrageous, especially in national wildlife refuges that belong to all Americans.”

He added: “Repealing these protections also undermines the critical role predators play in healthy ecosystems.”

Still, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) says these objections come from activists unfamiliar with Alaska, where “state management of fish and wildlife is practically sacrosanct.”

 

THE TWO-WAY

Senate Blocks Obama-Era Rule Tightening Checks On Mentally Ill Gun Buyers

“Opponents will allege that the repeal of this rule will legalize brutal predator control practices,” Murkowski said, according to the Dispatch News. “The Senate should know that it is already illegal for hunters to use certain practices — gas against wolves, traps to bears. You can’t do this in national wildlife refuges in Alaska.”

In working to repeal the FWS rule, Republican lawmakers turned again to the Congressional Review Act, a measure they also used to great effect last month in rolling back another Obama-era regulation.

As we explained then, the CRA is a means to review and cancel regulations issued in the final days of an outgoing administration: “The move allows the Senate to proceed with a simple majority, thus enabling GOP senators to avoid a filibuster by Democrats.”

Yellowstone reports 1st bear sighting of the season

Posted on by
1

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/yellowstone-reports-st-bear-sighting-of-the-season/article_f8926876-9d70-5a7a-a745-8a01b287b8dc.html

At least three grizzly bears have awoken from hibernation, according to a Yellowstone National Park press release.

Early Wednesday morning a park employee observed a grizzly bear between Mammoth Hot Springs and Tower-Roosevelt. It was the first confirmed bear sighting this year, although bear tracks have been observed since Feb. 22. Later in the morning, park staff saw two more grizzly bears scavenging carcasses in the northern part of the park.

This is a little later than the first reported bear sightings have been in recent years. In 2016, the first bear in the park was reported on Feb. 23. In 2015, the first sighting was Feb. 9. In 2014, bears were spotted on March 4.

When bears emerge from hibernation they look for food and often feed on elk and bison that died over the winter. Sometimes bears will act aggressively while feeding on carcasses.

All of Yellowstone National Park is bear country. To stay safe in bear country follow these guidelines:

  • Prepare for a bear encounter.
  • Carry bear spray, know how to use it, and make sure it’s accessible.
  • Stay alert.
  • Hike or ski in groups of three or more.
  • Stay on maintained trails and make noise.
  • Avoid hiking at dusk, dawn, or at night.
  • Do not run if you encounter a bear.
  • Stay 100 yards away from black and grizzly bears.
  • Use binoculars, a telescope, or telephoto lens to get a closer look.
  • Store food, garbage, barbecue grills and other attractants in hard-sided vehicles or bear-proof food storage boxes.
  • Learn more about bear safety.

“Yellowstone visitors care deeply about preserving bears and observing them in the wild,” said Kerry Gunther, the park’s Bear Management specialist. “Carrying bear spray is the best way for them to participate in bear conservation because reducing potential conflicts protects people and bears.”

While firearms are allowed in the park, the discharge of a firearm by visitors is a violation of park regulations.

The park restricts certain activities in locations where there is a high density of elk and bison carcasses and lots of bears. Restrictions began in some bear management areas on March 10.

Visitors are asked to report bear sightings and encounters to a park ranger immediately.

Grizzly restoration info session draws large crowd

Posted on by
2

http://methowvalleynews.com/2017/02/23/grizzly-restoration-info-session-draws-large-crowd/

by ADMIN on Feb 23, 2017 • 9:02 amNo Comments

Proposal would reintroduce bears to North Cascades

Photo by Ann McCreary
Grizzly expert Wayne Kasworm uses a map at the recent open house at the Barn to explain grizzly bear recovery proposals.

By Ann McCreary

A wildlife biologist who has worked for three decades to restore grizzly bears in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana has watched the population grow from around five bears in the 1980s to about 50 bears today.

The grizzly restoration effort has slowly rebuilt the population of bears in a 2,600-square-mile area near the town of Libby, much like a proposal to restore grizzly bears in the North Cascades, said Wayne Kasworm.

Kasworm, who works for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), took part in an open house at the Winthrop Barn last Wednesday (Feb. 15) to provide information about grizzly recovery proposals developed by FWS and the National Park Service (NPS) for the North Cascades.

Kasworm answered a variety of questions about grizzly bears from people who attended the open house, which drew about 140 people.

“Some people ask, ‘What good are bears?’” said Kasworm, who has been fielding questions about grizzly bears for years. “Value is an ‘eye of the beholder’ type of question,” he said.

“Bears are part of the original, native species to North America, a species that humans have either eliminated or reduced dramatically in numbers and distribution either by directly killing them or reducing their habitat,” Kasworm said.

“Biologically, bears function as scavengers, predators, seed dispersers, soil aerators, nutrient recyclers, and other functions,” he said.

“To many people they represent a symbol of wilderness or wild places. Other people hold them in fear and contempt.”

Three generations of grizzlies

In Montana, where grizzly recovery has been underway since the 1990s, “there are still people on both sides of the issue,” he said.

After five years of research in the 1980s revealed that only a handful of bears remained in the area called the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, Kasworm and other biologists proposed reintroducing bears from other areas to rebuild the population.

“It was not a popular idea,” he said.

A committee of stakeholders, including local elected officials, timber and mining industry representatives, was created to provide input on plans to restore grizzlies.

“We worked for two years, and came to a compromise. We would move four young grizzly females to test it out,” Kasworm said.

The bears were captured in other areas, including British Columbia, fitted with radio collars and released in the Cabinet Mountains between 1990-1994.

“Success” was defined as bears staying in the area and ultimately reproducing, he said.

In 2004 researchers were able to document through hair samples that at least one of the bears had reproduced. To date, Kasworm has documented three generations descended from one of the original transplanted bears.

Since the relocation program began in 1990, 19 bears have been released into the area to augment the population, including males to provide more genetic diversity, he said.

“They don’t all stay or live,” Kasworm said. “We know of at least five bears that have left” the area after being released. Six have died, including grizzlies that were mistaken for black bears and shot by hunters, and a grizzly that was hit by a train.

“We still put in a bear or two per year” in an effort to reach the goal of 100 bears, he said.

Goal of 200 bears

The Cabinet-Yaak is one of six grizzly “recovery zones” in the United States designated by FWS after the grizzly bear was listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.

It is less than one-fifth the size of the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) recovery zone, where the federal park and wildlife agencies propose re-establishing a population of 200 grizzly bears.

The NCE encompasses 9,800 square miles in Washington State and another 3,800 square miles in British Columbia.

The Washington portion includes the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (including the Methow Valley Ranger District), North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released in January describes three alternatives that would each work toward rebuilding the grizzly population through a process similar to the one in Montana.

The grizzly restoration proposals for the NCE differ primarily in how quickly the goal of 200 bears would be reached.

The open house in Winthrop last week was one of a series held throughout the region to provide information to the public about the draft EIS during the public comment period, which ends March 14.

John Rohrer, a wildlife biologist with the Methow Valley Ranger District, was among Forest Service staff at the open house. He said has followed up on many reports of suspected grizzly sightings in the North Cascades over the years, but none have proved to be an actual grizzly.

“The last confirmed sighting of a grizzly bear in the North Cascades was 1996 — that’s a long time,” he said.

Although there are grizzly bear populations in some parts of British Columbia, natural and human caused barriers — including large rivers and highways, and habitat regions that don’t support grizzlies — prevent the bears from moving into the NCE and re-establishing a population in that ecosystem, Kasworm said.

The draft EIS on grizzly recovery says historical records show that the North Cascades was once home to a sustainable population of grizzly bears, and a recent study indicates the Washington portion of the NCE has a “carrying capacity” of about 280 bears.

Recovery alternatives

Restoring grizzly bears is needed to prevent permanent loss of the species in the NCE, to help restore biodiversity in the ecosystem, and to support recovery so that grizzly bears can be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species, according to the draft EIS.

Grizzlies brought to the NCE would likely come from northwestern Montana or south-central British Columbia. The alternatives for restoring grizzlies describe approaches for capturing, transporting and releasing bears, replacing bears that die and releasing additional bears to augment the population.

In addition to a required “no-action” alternative, three alternatives are described in the draft EIS.

They include an “Ecosystem Evaluation Restoration” approach, which calls for releasing up to 10 bears at a remote site on Park Service or Forest Service land over two consecutive summers.

The bears would be monitored for two years to evaluate habitat use and any instances of conflicts with humans. A decision would be made in the fourth year whether to repeat the release of 10 additional bears, or transition to an “Incremental Restoration” alternative.

The incremental approach calls for release of five to seven bears over a five to 10 year period, with the goal of establishing an initial population of 25 grizzly bears. The bears would be released at multiple remote sites on national park and forest lands, located in close proximity to facilitate breeding among the relocated bears.

After a population of 25 bears has been reached, additional bears would likely be released every few years until a goal of 200 grizzlies has been achieved, which would take 60-100 years.

The final alternative, called “Expedited Restoration,” would not limit the primary restoration phase to 25 animals or set a limit for number released each year. Instead, the number of suitable grizzly bears captured would be released — likely five to seven bears per year — at multiple remote sites on federal lands.

That process would continue until the combination of release and reproduction results in a population of 200 grizzly bears, which would be achieved in about 25 years.

The federal agencies leading the study have not indicated any alternative as the preferred approach.

Bears would be captured in culvert traps and transported by helicopter to release sites in the North Cascades, including wilderness areas. A map of proposed release areas in the draft EIS shows potential staging areas at Eight Mile (Billy Goat), Hozomeen, Swamp Creek Pit, Green Mountain and West Fork Methow.

The draft EIS addresses potential impacts of grizzly restoration on backcountry recreation and tourism, wildlife, wilderness, ecosystem health, public safety, socioeconomics and Native American culture.

How to comment on the grizzly bear proposal

Comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be accepted through March 14. The draft EIS and instructions on how to submit comments electronically are available at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/grizzlydeis.

Written comments can be submitted to: Superintendent, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284.

Comments will be considered in developing a final EIS, which is expected to be completed in the fall of 2017.

A webinar providing information about the draft EIS and recovery proposals will be held Feb. 26, 5–7 p.m. To register for the webinar click on the “Meetings” link on the website listed above.

More work needed to protect grizzly bears from trains, says conservationist

Posted on by
3

By   Global News

A conservationist is questioning the direction Parks Canada and CP rail are going to mitigate human-caused bear deaths.

Jim Pissot, of the WildCanada Conservation Alliance, is reacting to the results of a five-year research project.

He called the study impressive, but said the mitigation work needs to go further.

Pissot said CP should be treated the same way tourists are if they get caught feeding wildlife.

He blames grain as the number one factor causing grizzly bear mortality in Banff and Yoho National Park and thinks Parks Canada should hold the company accountable.

Parks Canada said it works closely with CP rail.

CP points out a research project dismissed the notion that grain is the main contributor to bear mortality in the mountain parks.

Both Parks Canada and CP have laid out a list of ongoing projects they are involved in to keep bears away from the tracks, including getting rid of Buffalo berry bushes and burning new habitats to attract them to safer areas.

CP said it has spent millions of dollars fixing leaky grain cars and helped fund the most recent study.

On Tuesday the company issued this statement:

“Over the years, people have become entrenched in their positions on this very important topic. That is why, CP, working closely with Parks Canada, decided it was necessary to engage the academic community – who could provide sound, unbiased, and peer-reviewed science.

The perception that the largest contributing factor to grizzly bear mortality risk on the tracks is grain was not supported by the important research that was completed by Parks Canada and Universities of Alberta and Calgary.

Prior to the start of the intensive phase of the research program, the grain hopper car gate replacement had been completed. While not quantified as part of the research, this work was a tremendous success and there is much less grain reported on the tracks.

The research has succeeded in identifying opportunities like improving vegetation management along the railway and installing electromats at select locations to deter bears.”

In the past decade, 10 grizzly bears have been reported as being killed by trains in Banff and Yoho National Parks.

It’s estimated there are only about 60 grizzly bears left.

© 2017 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3233892/more-work-needed-to-protect-grizzly-bears-from-trains-says-conservationist/

431125_10150547334526188_1114807436_n

Why trains run down grizzlies: ‘After six years of study, Parks Canada, Canadian Pacific blame the bears’

Posted on by
6

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-trains-run-down-grizzlies-bizarrely-after-six-years-of-study-parks-canada-canadian-pacific-blame-the-bears

Michele Jarvie, Postmedia News | February 9, 2017 

Grizzlies on railway tracks in Banff National Park.

Courtesy (c) John E. Marriott ImageGrizzlies on railway tracks in Banff National Park.

Some wildlife activists and Banff business owners are voicing disappointment over recently released results of a $1-million, five-year study into bear deaths on train tracks in mountain national parks.

Jim Pissot of WildCanada Conservation Alliance, says the recommendations to create alternative habitat and escape routes, manage vegetation, install early warning systems and electric mats ignore one glaring reason grizzlies are attracted to the tracks — spilled grain from rail cars.

“Bizarrely, after six years of study, Parks Canada and Canadian Pacific have blamed the bears,” said Pissot. “They are determined that the bears, wolves and other wildlife must change their behaviour, but CP will not have to.”

The study found that approximately 110 tonnes of grain is lost on the tracks each year, which is equivalent to the annual nutritional needs of 50 adult grizzlies. In the past 10 years, 10 grizzlies have been killed by trains in Banff and Yoho parks.

But the study’s research team found a number of reasons why bears are attracted to the railway, including ease of movement along the rail corridor, abundance of berries and other plants and, to a lesser extent, spilled grain.

“It’s not the only factor attracting them, and may not be the main one,” said University of Alberta professor Colleen Cassady St. Clair.

kA grizzly looks for snacks along the tracks just west of Lake Louise, Alta., on Tuesday, May 20, 2014. The bear heard a train coming and got out of the way quickly.

She said they looked at grain spillage and train speed, and found more grain was spilled the slower the train travelled. More grain was also deposited at the west end of the park, yet the grizzly bear mortality was higher at the east end.

When the study results were released in January, CP officials said they had no plans to adjust procedures or policies beyond continuing to respond to grain spills with vacuum and blower trucks.

Critics question why Parks Canada is not pushing Canadian Pacific to take action.

“Death on CP tracks is the number one human cause of grizzly bear mortality in Banff National Park,” said Stephen Herrero, professor emeritus at the University of Calgary and one of Canada’s foremost experts on grizzly bears. “The railway needs to do more.”

Juniper Hotel hotelier Peter Poole said wildlife deaths negatively impact tourists and, potentially, Banff businesses.

“Our guests — and Canadian taxpayers — are dismayed when the elk and bears in our national parks are killed unnecessarily. There are straightforward solutions that would cost pennies for each tonne of cargo going through our mountain parks; let’s get on with it.”

Success: Park Service Plans to Relocate Grizzly Bears to North Cascades

Posted on by
1

Success: Park Service Plans to Relocate Grizzly Bears to North Cascades

Target: Michael T. Reynolds, Acting Director, National Park Service

Goal: Support proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears to North Cascades National Park.

The National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that they have created a proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears to North Cascades National Park in Washington. The plan calls for increasing the grizzly population to at least 200 bears, and the agencies are currently deciding whether to move the bears from northwestern Montana or south-central British Columbia. They will make the final decision about whether to move forward with the plan and where to move the bears from later this year.

Historically, the grizzly bear population stretched all the way from Alaska to Mexico, and there were over 50,000 bears in the western United States. But human population growth and habitat decimation lowered these numbers exponentially, and there are now approximately 1,500 to 1,800 bears in the area. This population decimation is especially drastic in Washington – there are estimated to be fewer than 10 bears in the North Cascades. The last bear was seen in the wild in 2010, and before that, no bears were seen since 1996. With over 9,500 square miles of wild land, the North Cascades is the right spot for a new grizzly bear population.

Many animal advocates have voiced their desire to have grizzly bears back in Washington, including members of the ForceChange community who signed petitions like this one. Under the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s new plan, this dream could become a reality. Sign this petition to show your support for the new grizzly bear relocation plan.

PETITION LETTER:

Dear Director Reynolds,

Thank you for creating a comprehensive proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears to North Cascades National Park. The North Cascades is one of the bears’ native territories, but human population growth and habitat decimation have driven grizzlies out of the area. By moving new bears into the area, you’ll be able to help revitalize the grizzly population in North Cascades National Park.

North Cascades National Park has over 9,500 square miles of land, making it the right place to start a new population of grizzly bears. Thank you for putting together a plan to bring grizzly bears back to the North Cascades. I look forward to seeing the grizzly population grow in Washington.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

431125_10150547334526188_1114807436_n

Should grizzly bears be returned to the North Cascades?

Posted on by
6

http://komonews.com/news/local/should-grizzly-bears-be-returned-to-the-north-cascades

by Kara Kostanich

Thursday, January 19th 2017

SEATTLE — The threatened majestic and mighty grizzly bear hasn’t been seen in the North Cascade for more than 20 years.

But that could be changing. A preliminary draft plan has been unveiled to reintroduce grizzlies into North Central Washington.

“This project would bring the grizzly bears, these magnificent symbols of wilderness, and bring back the ecological function that grizzly bears provide to the ecosystem,” said Fred Koontz, vice president of field conservation at the Woodland Park Zoo.

If the plan moves forward – over the next five years, up five bears annually would be captured from other locations and brought to the most remote areas of the North Cascades.

“We hear about people who like to experience a wild North Cascades, with all its native species, including grizzly bears,” said Chase Gunnell of Conservation Northwest, “and from people who want more information on how they can co-exist with these animals.”

Alex Lansa, who supports reintroducing the animals to the North Cascades, has spent the four summers on the trail crew at Yellowstone National Park and has experienced grizzly bears first hand.

“I think it’s exciting…seeing a bear is one of the most thrilling things that can happen.”

The proposed reintroduction does have opposition from ranchers.

The Washington Cattleman’s Association released a statement to us that says in part:

“The WCA strongly opposes the proposed action to reintroduce grizzly bears into Washington State. We believe that grizzly bear recovery and recolonization must occur naturally with human augmentation.”

But conservationist Fred Koontz says the bears would be far away from civilization, tagged and monitored by biologist daily in hopes of bringing back up to 200 bears over the next century.

“This whole process is a wonderful learning exercise for the scientist and the public to see how we can bring back the health of ecology and the bears in our state.”

The draft plan is open for public comment until March. 17.