WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Registered User Maydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-14-2016
    Location
    Baldwin County, Georgia
    Age
    64
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Does California need grizzlies? Do grizzlies need California? Maybe they like the other states. Does California have an ecosystem where grizzlies can flourish? Forced relocation of grizzlies just because "there used to be a bunch there" seems less than smart. Haven't we disrupted them enough?
    "I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list." - S. Sontag

  2. #22
    Registered User Engine's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-29-2009
    Location
    Citrus Springs, FL
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,673
    Images
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maydog View Post
    Does California need grizzlies? Do grizzlies need California? Maybe they like the other states. Does California have an ecosystem where grizzlies can flourish? Forced relocation of grizzlies just because "there used to be a bunch there" seems less than smart. Haven't we disrupted them enough?
    Did Yellowstone need wolves? Did the reintroduced wolves need Yellowstone? If California does have the required wilderness area meeting the needs of a healthy population of bears, why not reintroduce their magnificence to a former range?

    Two of the greatest backpacking memories I have occurred on the same day in Yellowstone. Waking up to the Druid Pack howling at 5:30 in the morning less than 1/2 mile from our tent, and seeing a grizzly amble by less than 30 feet behind that same tent later in the afternoon. Experiences of that nature put the "wild" in wilderness. The responsible parties in California would do well to study the logistics involved in reintroducing the wolf to Yellowstone.

    Certainly the committment required to move a breeding population of apex predators back into their former range is immense. Public education, dealing with disgruntled ranchers, poaching, and many other problems will have to be dealt with. But, based on my experiences on that one day, I would have to say the effort was worth it...
    “He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature.” –Socrates

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-26-2015
    Location
    Denver Colorado
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tipi Walter View Post
    With 27 million humans in Florida, I'd say they have a much bigger problem---too many dang people.

    The main question is not whether Calif should bring bears back into the state, but why the heck did California settlers wipe out the golden bears to begin with?? If you can figure this one out, you can really understand settlers, their attitudes, and why they let this happen. Or why Floridians allowed the panthers to disappear.



    Exactly. But humans are highly self-loving and put themselves up as Gods. City on the Hill, etc. In my opinion one grizzly bear is worth 10,000 humans. How much is one panther worth?

    There are 39 million humans in California. Their state flag has the golden bear on it. How many golden bears are left? None. What effort is California doing to manage their ecosystem? With 39 million, apparently nothing. Sure, bring every bear into Calif you can find, AND cull the humans as the humans culled the bears and the California Indians.

    (History factoid: 100,000 Calif Indians murdered by California settlers between the years 1846-1848).
    I read somewhere, that too much weight on the spinal column causes irrational and delusional thoughts and confusion.

  4. #24
    Wanna-be hiker trash
    Join Date
    03-05-2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Age
    42
    Posts
    6,922
    Images
    78

    Default

    Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

  5. #25

    Default

    I think the California Golden Bear was quite different than a grizzly bear, not only color.

    I remember when mountain lions were introduced, one every 4 square miles. One female nearby me, screamed pitiably for a mate. I think it is stupid to bring animals out into open country to leave them there: captive animals need to be reintroduced. Is that environment sustainable for that animal: can they thrive there?

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maydog View Post
    Does California need grizzlies? Do grizzlies need California? Maybe they like the other states. Does California have an ecosystem where grizzlies can flourish? Forced relocation of grizzlies just because "there used to be a bunch there" seems less than smart. Haven't we disrupted them enough?
    Years ago most all the apex predators were hunted out of places like Yellowstone National Park. There was a reintroduction of these species and some curious things happened, the most interesting was the existing population of deer, elk, and other animals became more robust and healthy. When apex predators were re-introduced there were claims the end of the world would arrive quickly thereafter, but never did and the entire ecosystem benefitted.

    While there are occasional deaths due to Bear attacks (approximately 128 since 1900 in the US) and approximately 9 fatal brown bear attacks by hikers in the lower 48 States from 2,000 to current data. Moose kill approximate 1 person a year hiking in forests in the lower 48, which exceed the number of deaths from brown bears. Add to that the number of people moose kill annually and they quickly become the larger threat on a National level. Statistically, the numbers of brown bear incidents really do not support any conclusions that prevent the experiment from being performed.

    *- Not all Brown Bears are Grizzly Bears, but all Grizzly Bears are Brown Bears.

    The problem, as I see it, is relocation efforts have to start in relatively small areas so bears can find each other. This is the most likely reason (not including deliberate human destruction of them) they have not ventured into CA from areas several States away.

  7. #27
    Registered User egilbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-18-2014
    Location
    Lewiston and Biddeford, Maine
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Years ago most all the apex predators were hunted out of places like Yellowstone National Park. There was a reintroduction of these species and some curious things happened, the most interesting was the existing population of deer, elk, and other animals became more robust and healthy. When apex predators were re-introduced there were claims the end of the world would arrive quickly thereafter, but never did and the entire ecosystem benefitted.

    While there are occasional deaths due to Bear attacks (approximately 128 since 1900 in the US) and approximately 9 fatal brown bear attacks by hikers in the lower 48 States from 2,000 to current data. Moose kill approximate 1 person a year hiking in forests in the lower 48, which exceed the number of deaths from brown bears. Add to that the number of people moose kill annually and they quickly become the larger threat on a National level. Statistically, the numbers of brown bear incidents really do not support any conclusions that prevent the experiment from being performed.

    *- Not all Brown Bears are Grizzly Bears, but all Grizzly Bears are Brown Bears.

    The problem, as I see it, is relocation efforts have to start in relatively small areas so bears can find each other. This is the most likely reason (not including deliberate human destruction of them) they have not ventured into CA from areas several States away.
    I read something, once, that noted that predators were good for prey animals since they killed the young and weak. It kept the populations in check and sick animals didnt live long enough to spread any disease to the rest of the herd. The young that were killed off prevented the herd from starving to death. Only the strongest were allowed to reproduce.

    Its only when man, and hunting for trophies, that the herds got smaller and individual animals weaker.

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-26-2015
    Location
    Denver Colorado
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egilbe View Post

    Its only when man, and hunting for trophies, that the herds got smaller and individual animals weaker.
    This is a false statement at least as it relates to western states in particular Colorado. Wildlife and large mammals in particular are very carefully monitored by State agencies. Harvesting permits are controlled by type of weapon, time frame, animal sex and population census within a given game management area. A high percentage of animals harvested are inspected by State officials for compliance to the originating permit. Penalties for non-compliance are expensive and strictly enforced.

    If you've ever hunted, finding, stalking and getting a clean shot on a trophy animal is very, very, very difficult. Many hunters who draw a bull elk tag can go seasons with filling it.

    In terms of trophy elk, many hunters who have the economic means go to private ranches. There rules and regulations are even more strict. Guides only allow clients to take very mature bulls who are older and near the end of their life natural lifespan. Although the natural death is typically brought on by a fractured jaw, crushed skull or punctured lung due to rigors of the rut. Younger, more viral males remain to further the gene pool.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •