Nutty Grizzy Decision Appealed
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appealed last September’s ruling [here] by (who else?) Judge Donald Molloy relisting grizzly bears.
Molloy ordered the USFWS to place the abundant bears back onto the Endangered Species list because, as the Judge alleged, global warming is killing the white pines which are a principal food of grizzly bears [here].
The problems with Molloy’s ruling are that:
1. The grizzly bear population is exploding. The species is in no way going extinct;
2. Global warming is a hoax and a scam. Average temperatures have been falling globally and in North America for 12 years;
3. White pinenuts are not a principal food of grizzly bears, which are omnivorous and eat almost anything. Grizzly bears are abundant where there are no pinenuts at all.
Strike three! Judge Molloy fancies himself to be a biologist, but in fact he is a fraud and a nincompoop.
The USFWS under Obama has aborted the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, relisted non-endangered wolves, relisted non-endangered grizzly bears, and acted in general like a bad day at the insane asylum.
But after a year of dithering, they have decided to appeal one of the many pathetic nutzoid rulings by Molloy.
So that’s something. Don’t count on the USFWS to prevail, however. This is a toothless crocodile appeal, just going through the motions for PR purposes, without any real desire to overturn Molloy’s ruling.
Yellowstone Grizzly Court Decision to be Appealed
FWS Appeal 2009 Decision Putting Bears Back on Endangered Species List
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 8/26/10 [here]
Wolves are not the only controversial animal recently put back on the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently appealed a 2009 court decision, made by Judge Donald W. Molloy of the Federal District Court for Montana that placed the Yellowstone Grizzly back under Endangered Species (ESA) protection. The outcome of the appeal will lead to an important precedent as to how difficult it will be in the future to delist any species once placed under federal protection even when their populations have recovered.
Judge Molloy’s decision came in response to a suit brought against the FWS by a coalition of anti-hunting and environmental groups seeking to overturn the agency’s 2007delisting of the bear. The Service has publicly stated that the Yellowstone Grizzly’s have surpassed recovery goals and they strongly oppose the decision.
Among the reasons cited by Molloy for relisting the grizzlies was a determination that the FWS relied on state regulations to assure protection of the bears after being delisted that he did not believe were adequate.
“We disagree with every point [Judge Molloy] has,” stated FWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen according to press reports.
Judge Molloy’s decision could have far reaching implications. This case may establish a precedent that could be used by anti-hunters to block the delisting of healthy and sustainable animal populations, such as the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves and the Great Lakes wolves.
The Yellowstone Grizzly population has reached approximately 600 bears. At this number, many biologists believe that the Yellowstone ecosystem is at full saturation level with grizzlies. In fact, the target recovery population to trigger the delisting was set at 400-500.
Truth Coming to Light Re Grizzly Bear Fatal Attack
The facts are coming to light regarding the June 17 fatal attack by a grizzly bear on Erwin Evert, noted botanist.
For background see [here, here].
On July 16 the US Fish and Wildlife Service released the Investigation Team Report — Fatality of Erwin Evert from a bear attack in Kitty Creek on the Shoshone National Forests on June 17, 2010. [11.5 MB here].
Dave Smith, Bear Attack Examiner of Examiner.com, analyzed the Report:
Report incriminates feds in fatal bear mauling
by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, July 20, 2010 [here]
Ever since a grizzly bear near Yellowstone Park that had just been trapped, tranquilized and released by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team killed Erwin Evert on June 17, agency representatives have told the media Evert had no one to blame but himself. They claimed the trap site was closed and posted with warnings.
On June 19, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen told the Billings Gazette, “We try to do everything we can to minimize the risks. But we can’t protect ourselves against people that ignore every warning we give, and we can’t protect people against themselves.”
On July 16, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a 105-page report about Evert’s death that said, “There were no warning or closure signs at the incident location where Mr. Evert approached this site when he was killed.”
The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) had been trapping near Evert’s cabin on Kitty Creek in the Shoshone National Forest for about three weeks before his death. The IGBST failed to notify Evert, or 13 other cabin owners in the area, of it’s activities.
The IGBST did not do a news release so the local media could warn people about bear trapping at Kitty Creek.
The cabins along Kitty Creek are located on Forest Road #448. The road ends just beyond the cabins, where Kitty Creek Trail #756 begins. There were no warning signs at the trailhead.
Evert was killed about two miles up the trail. It was perfectly legal for Evert or anyone else to head up the trail.
The IGBST set bear traps at numerous sites in the Kitty Creek drainage over the course of three weeks. The trap sites were posted with signs that said, “closed.” Evert was well aware of bear trapping in the area, but never went beyond the closed signs.
The 430# male grizzly bear that killed Evert was released at trap site #3 at 12:30 p.m. “With the bear showing signs of recovering, the crew removed the snare equipment and closure signs in the area and left.”
It was noted that “the bear had a large open wound behind its left shoulder and numerous scars and fight wounds on its head and neck.” … [more]
The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) abandoned a wounded, drugged, male grizzly a mile from the Kitty Creek cabins and a Boy Scout camp, took all their signs down, and departed.
The only sign of a “dangerous bear” that Erwin Evert had seen was at a different site a week earlier. That sign did not mention trapping and drugging, nor did it mention the site where he was killed.
Following the fatal attack, the IGBST deliberately spread misinformation to discredit and disparage the victim, although IGBST employees were well aware that they had taken down all the warning signs before Erwin Evert had even left for his hike. IGBST knowingly lied to the media and falsely claimed that Evert ignored the removed signs. IGBST also told the media they has closed the trail (false), that Evert’s wife was their employee (false), that Evert had knowledge of bear trapping and sites (false), and other lies as part of a clear campaign to blame the victim.
The IGBST is administered by the USGS Biological Research Division. They are died-in-the-wool global warming alarmists [here]. They claim global warming is killing off grizzly bears, when in fact grizzly bear populations are expanding. They are allied with radical environmental groups who are suing the government to drive human beings off the land [here].
The IGBST operates in the shadows, with an extreme political agenda that taints any “science” they do. Hiding their shadowy existence is why they took the signs down. The IGBST had never informed the media that they were trapping grizzly bears in the area. They think they are the CIA of bears, and that the public should be kept in the dark as to their machinations. They also seek to hide their research data.
As a consequence of the IGBST’s clandestine operations, an innocent citizen and taxpayer has been cruelly killed.
It is imperative that the US Attorney investigate, indict, and prosecute IGBST officials for negligent homicide and for the attempted cover-up of their crimes.
See also: Bear researchers gamble with lives of citizens by Dave Smith [here]
Court suits involving bear researchers are inevitable by Dave Smith [here]
Deadly Bear Journalism
Dave Smith of Examiner.com is doing an excellent job reporting about the fatal grizzly bear mauling of Erwin Evert near Yellowstone Park on June 17 [here].
Dave Smith is the author of Don’t Get Eaten, and Backcountry Bear Basics: The Definitive Guide to Avoiding Unpleasant Encounters. In past lives he spent more than a decade in Alaska, and another six years working as a winterkeeper in the snowbound heart of Yellowstone Park. He’s an avid outdoorsman and traveler, and the “bear examiner” at Examiner.com.
Smith’s reports to date on the June 17 fatal mauling include:
Investigation of fatal bear mauling could take months
by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, July 1, 2010 [here]
If history is any guide, it could be months before wildlife officials finish their investigation into the June 17 death of a man near Yellowstone Park killed by a grizzly that had just been trapped, tranquilized and released.
Seventy year-old botanist Ewrin Evert of Park Ridge, IL was killed near his cabin on Kitty Creek, about seven miles from the East Entrance of Yellowstone National Park. There were no witnesses. On June 29, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader Chuck Schwartz told the Associated Press, “federal wildlife authorities outside the team will conduct the investigation.”
How long can Evert’s widow, daughter, and friends expect to wait before the investigation is completed? …
Will fatal bear mauling be investigated?
by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, June 28, 2010 [here]
Will there be an independent, objective investigation by law enforcement officials into the suspicious death of a man near Yellowstone Park who was killed by a grizzly bear that had just been trapped, tranquilized, and released? …
Seventy year-old botanist Erwin Evert of Park Ridge, IL was killed on June 17 just two miles from his summer cabin on Kitty Creek, near the East Entrance to Yellowstone National Park.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader Chuck Schwartz says a 50-to-100 square yard area around the bear trapping site was closed. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen claims a trail that began near Evert’s cabin and lead to the trap site was closed. Evert’s wife and cabin owners in the area dispute these claims. …
Servheen told the Chicago Tribune that on June 17, the bear trappers caught a 430-pound male grizzly in a foot snare. “They tranquilized it, collected blood and hair samples and fitted it with a [radio] collar. They waited for it to stir, then beat a quick retreat.”
Did they watch the bear to make sure it recovered from being tranquilized? “Standard Operating Procedure” for the “Capture, Handling & Release of Grizzly Bears” in Canada’s Northwest Territories is that “bears captured by snare should be observed from a safe distance until they recover and move away from the site.” (p.20)
A Park County, WY sheriff’s department press release said that after tranquilizing and radio-collaring the bear that later killed Evert, trappers “packed up their equipment and left the area.”
If their job was done, why would the trap site still be closed? Wouldn’t the trappers take down the “closed” signs and pack them out with the rest of their equipment?
Erwin Evert left his cabin for a daily hike at 1:15 p.m. He could easily have covered the two miles to the bear trapping site in an hour. That puts him at the trap site at 2:15 p.m.
According to the Chicago Tribune, authorities said trappers left the area where the bear was released “around 1 p.m.” Oddly, the bear trappers did not cross paths with Evert. Stranger yet, there’s no indication law enforcement officials have tried to determine exactly when Evert died.
The bear trappers were on horseback. It was only two miles to Evert’s cabin, but they didn’t arrive until at least 4 p.m. Why would it take three hours to cover two miles on horseback?
Near the cabin, the bear trappers were met by Erwin Evert’s wife Yolanda, who told them her husband was late returning from his walk. One of the bear trappers claims he went back up the trap site and found Evert’s body. Did he notify a supervisor via cell phone or 2-way radio? “Hey boss, I thought thought you might want to know there’s a dead body where we just tranquilized and released a grizzly bear.”
All that’s known is that the bear trapper went back down the trail to the cabins to deliver horrifying news to Yolanda Evert. It took 15 minutes, round trip.
The Park County Sheriff’s Department wasn’t notified “that a subject had possibly been mauled and killed by a grizzly bear until 6:48 p.m.”
What took so long? The bear trappers met Yolanda Evert sometime between 4 p.m and 5 p.m. If there was no cell phone service or 2-way radio service at the cabins on Kitty Creek, it was 15 minutes max to the East Entrance of Yellowstone Park. Why did it take almost 2 hours to call the Sherrif’s department?
Nothing about this story adds up. Everything points to a cover-up.
Yesterday, the Casper-Star Tribune’s editorial board said a “formal review” of closures during bear trapping operations by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team “might reveal some ways to improve the process.”
Not doubt it will. But an in-house review of bear trapping procedures by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team is one issue, and a law enforcement investigation into the death of Erwin Evert is another matter entirely.
Is a law enforcement agency going to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Erwin Evert’s death?
Deadly Government Bears
Another collared bear has killed an innocent citizen:
Grizzly kills man near Wyoming’s Yellowstone Park
By MEAD GRUVER - Associated Press Writer, June 18, 2010 [here]
A grizzly bear killed a Wyoming man outside Yellowstone National Park, apparently just hours after researchers trapped and tranquilized the animal.
The attack happened Thursday in the same place where two researchers with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team [here] had examined a large adult male grizzly earlier that day, Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said Friday.
The suspect bear was wearing a radio collar. Authorities didn’t intend to venture into the woods to chase the animal, however. …
Shoshone National Forest officials closed off the Kitty Creek area, about six miles outside the Yellowstone East Entrance, until further notice.
“There have been Forest Service people in the area talking to people who live in those cabins, and at the lodges around there, letting them know what’s going on,” forest spokeswoman Susan Douglas said Friday. …
“My heart goes out for the victim and the family involved in this. Nobody would want anything like this to happen,” Chuck Schwartz, head of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team based in Bozeman, Mont., said Friday.
The team is made up of federal and state biologists who monitor and study grizzlies in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
The researchers also had trapped and tranquilized another grizzly in the area Thursday.
Schwartz said there would be an investigation, including into whether required procedures were followed, such as posting warning signs about the grizzly research.
Schwartz said it wasn’t certain whether the trapped grizzly had mauled Evert. But Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said it’s unlikely that another grizzly would have been in the same area as the large adult male.
“There’s a very, very high probability that it was this bear,” Servheen said.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department was working Friday to try to recapture the bear, agency spokesman Eric Keszler said.
Grizzly bears have been back on the federal list of threatened species since last year.
This is not the first case of negligence by wildlife biologists leading to the killing of innocent people. In 2007 an 11-year-old boy was killed in a bear attack, by an aggressive bear known to employees of the USFS and the Utah Division of Wildlife Services who failed to warn campers [here].
Maine: Spiraling Toward A Predator Pit
by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, April 28, 2010 [here]
A predator pit is created when deer populations (speaking of Maine’s deer management problem) have been reduced for various reasons and existing key predators, like coyote, bear and bobcat, can drive those numbers even further into an abyss, perhaps prohibiting a regrowth of the herd.
Admitting you got a predator pit might be as difficult as admitting you’re an alcoholic or a habitual drug user. It seems these days wildlife managers aren’t interested in admitting that predators can be a problem. I have written on this blog before that under ideal conditions, Maine pays little attention to the coyote, bear, bobcat or any other predator that might feast on a whitetail deer, adult or fawn. When populations, such as deer, get out of skew, an abundance of predators can and will create a predator pit, something that can never end and that is a very serious condition.
Before we look into what leads to a predator pit, we must first examine the problem that exists where wildlife managers fail to admit predators can be a problem. Dr. Charles Kay, perhaps the top wildlife ecologist in the U.S. today and an Adjunct Assistant Professor and a Senior Research Scientist at Utah State University, wrote in Petersen’s Hunting Magazine, in August 1993, that research indicated that predators limit ungulate (hoofed animals) populations.
Research in Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta and other Canadian Provinces indicates that wolves and other predators, more often than not, limit ungulates.
Further, Mark Hebblewhite, University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, in a 10-year study called, “Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System“, examines how predators, mainly wolves, affect ungulate herds in and near the Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Hebblewhite warns wildlife mangers of the troubles attempting to manage predators in order to sustain an ungulate population as a food source, i.e. for hunting purposes.
Based on experiences in BNP, I show that wildlife managers face tough choices ahead and must come to terms with the truth that maintaining prewolf ungulate harvest regimes may be a fantasy in postwolf landscapes and, moreover, may be incompatible with ecosystem management.
Hebblewhite refers to “prewolf” and “postwolf” but we can certainly ascertain that coyotes, bears and other large predators can have effects on ungulate populations, especially if allowed to grow in numbers too great and/or other conditions on the ground have greatly reduced deer numbers, i.e. weather, hunting, disease, predation, etc..
George Dovel, Editor of The Outdoorsman, sums up in the Feb-April 2010 Edition, Bulletin Number 38, this same Hebblewhite 10-year study by listing 10 conclusions the study provided.
1. Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
2. Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
3. 60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
4. Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
5. Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
6. Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
7. Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
8. Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
9. To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
10. Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective.
Readers may want to refer back to these 10 conclusions later on as there are many things that have been determined here that can be carried to predator management in Maine’s Predator Pit. … [more]
Polar bear’s status focus of Nunavut hearing
Article and comments from CBC News, April 13, 2010 [here]
The question of how to classify Canada’s polar bears under species-at-risk legislation is the subject of a three-day public hearing that began Tuesday in Iqaluit.
Polar bears in Canada were listed as a “species of special concern” — one step below “threatened” and two below “endangered” — under the federal Species at Risk Act in 2002.
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is hosting the three-day hearing to consider a 2008 recommendation from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) to keep the “special concern” classification.
The board will submit its own recommendation to the federal government, which will make the final decision about whether to change the polar bear status.
There were an estimated 15,500 polar bears in Canada in 2008, according to COSEWIC, a 60-member scientific committee that advises the federal government on species that should be protected. …
The committee spent two years assessing data about the entire Canadian polar bear population — which is divided into 13 isolated subpopulations — chairman Jeff Hutchings said Tuesday.
Hutchings said although COSEWIC found there are generally more polar bears today than 50 years ago, their future survival could be threatened.
“The key question is what’s going to happen in the future given that sea ice is likely going to decline and that polar bears do depend upon sea ice,” he said.
“That’s the key uncertainty; it’s looking into the future. That’s the basis for the special concern listing.”
While the committee is worried about the effects of climate change in the Arctic, it also has concerns about the hunting of polar bear subpopulations in the Baffin Bay and Kane Basin areas, some parts of which are governed by Greenland.
Inuit in those areas have long disputed scientists’ claims that overhunting has led to fewer bears and could threaten the survival of those subpopulations.
Judge “Grizzly” Molloy Scares Humans
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy has banned aerial weed spraying on the Kootenai National Forest because the helicopters might scare grizzly bears.
The poor, frightened grizzly bears might be driven from their habitat according to the judge.
Judge nixes aerial weed spraying on Kootenai
By MATT VOLZ, helenair.com, April 8, 2010 [here]
A U.S. Forest Service plan to spray herbicide from helicopters over the Kootenai National Forest does not adequately protect dozens of grizzly bears and could drive them from their habitat, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy concluded the federal agency can’t conduct any aerial spraying in the 2.2-million acre forest in Montana’s northwestern corner until it addresses in its plan how often the flights would be allowed and what the effect would be on the endangered bears.
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, a Helena-based environmental group, sued the Forest Service over the plan, saying multiple fly-overs would cause the bears to flee and permanently abandon any habitat that is subject to weed spraying.
“When the low-flying helicopters fly over grizzly habit, the grizzlies leave,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the group. “They can’t just fly helicopters over endangered species habitat without looking at the effects on the endangered species.”
Molloy, affirming a magistrate judge’s earlier recommendations, sent the plan back to the Forest Service, saying the agency’s conclusion that low-altitude, high-frequency flights are not likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Other aspects of the plan, including ground application of the herbicides, can go forward, Molloy said in the March 30 ruling.
The environmental group also claimed in the lawsuit that the chemical used in the herbicide could be harmful to animals and to people living in the Libby area, but the judge ruled for the Forest Service in those claims. … [more]
Judge Molloy also thinks grizzly bears are going extinct due to global warming [here].
We have a serious problem when Federal judges adopt pseuodscience mythologies and prescribe wildlife management from the bench. Crackpot theories are okay when held by crackpots without dictatorial powers, but when Federal judges pretend to know something about wildlife, they really muck things up.
How about wildfires, Judge Molloy? Shall the USFS stop fighting forest fires in “grizzly habitat” because those firefighting helicopters “scare the bears”?
Grizzlies Relisted Due to Global Warming
The US Fish and Wildlife Service put grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park back on the threatened species list on March 26th. The USFWS was forced to do so by a court decision that said global warming is causing the bears to go extinct.
Yellowstone grizzlies were first listed as endangered in 1975 when 200 bears roamed the park and surrounding areas. After $20 million was spent to recover the species, over 600 bears in Yellowstone constituted the densest population in North America and grizzlies had spread throughout the Northern Rockies.
The USFWS delisted Yellowstone grizzlies in 2007, as required under the Endangered Species Act, because determination was made that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was no longer an endangered or threatened population.
The Greater Yellowstone Coalition brought suit, contending that whitebark pine was declining due to global warming, that grizzlies are dependent on whitebark pine nuts, and that therefore the bears were still endangered and likely to go extinct.
All those contentions are completely bogus, yet U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled last September that, “There is a connection between whitebark pine and grizzly survival” [here].
Judge Molloy is the same judge who put Northern Rocky Mountain wolves back on the endangered species list because he determined the wolves capacity for “genetic exchange” was inadequate [here].
Judge Molloy thinks he is a wildlife biologist, but his theories are completely crackers. Judges who pretend to be scientists, who ignore the overwhelming testimony of real scientists and dream up their own crackpot theories, are a strain and burden to the American judicial system.
In this case Judge Molloy didn’t base his ruling on his pet “genetic exchange” theory, but instead ruled that “climate change” was going to make the bears go extinct. This is despite the fact that the grizzly bear population has grown steadily over the last 35 years, a period when climate alarmists claim we have experienced global warming.
Note: No one can prove that the climate anywhere has “changed”. No one can prove that it is going to. The entire global warming theory is a hoax and a scam.
But even if the climate changes, it will not affect grizzly bears who once roamed regions far to the south of Yellowstone. Heck, grizzly bears once roamed California where they are the Official State Animal. Grizzly bears are not restricted ecologically to any particular climate.
Nor are whitebark pine nuts the principal food of grizzly bears. They are a minor snack, and in most places where grizzly bears live there are no whitebark pine trees at all!
Nor are whitebark pines dying out, nor will they even if the climate changes, which it is not going to.
The entire theory is complete eco-babble nonsense and bogosity. But Judge Molloy is all-powerful, no matter how loony he his. The system is truly broken when lunatics run the asylum, and that is exactly the case in America today. Justice is not only blind, she is mad as a hatter.
Extracts from the grizzly bear relisiting Final Rule follow:
On Predator-Prey Relations
We have recently posted two engaging “popular” articles by Dr. Charles E. Kay concerning predator-prey relations (or relationships or interactions).
Dr. Kay (of Utah State University) is one of our premier wildlife ecologists and is the author/editor of Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature [here], author of Are Lightning Fires Unnatural? A Comparison of Aboriginal and Lightning Ignition Rates in the United States [here], co-author of Native American influences on the development of forest ecosystems [here], and numerous other scientific papers.
In Wolf Predation: More Bad News [here], Dr Kay discusses apparent or predator meditated competition, using wolves, moose, caribou, and deer as examples.
Predator meditated competition is a tricky concept. Most people are aware that predators can reduce a prey population, and that the predator population can then fall due to a lack of prey. As the predators decline, the prey population rebounds. Then the predator population rebounds, and the cycle begins anew.
But this model of predator-prey relations is overly simplified. In the real world, predators often have alternative choices besides one type of prey. If the alternative prey is sufficiently numerous, the predator populations do not always decline so much. The primary prey is thus still subject to predation, and it can be driven to extinction.
In effect, the various prey populations are in competition with each other, not for food but for predator avoidance.
Don’t Feed The Bears
The latest craze of the dingle-brained rich is to feed bears. Wealthy McMansion owners from Aspen to Lake Tahoe have adopted the insane practice of putting food out for black bears in a kind of twisted substitute for human charity.
It is de rigeur to hate the human race, and so the deep-pocketed-and-guilt-ridden set are uncomfortable feeding starving people. Instead they feed bears to quell their feelings of self-loathing. Besides, bears are cute whereas hungry people are homelessly homely.
Until the bears turn on their charity-givers and kill them and eat them. This news is just in from Colorado.
Ouray County woman’s body found; bear attack suspected
By Le Roy Standish, The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, August 08, 2009 [here]
A 73-year-old Ouray County woman, possibly killed by bears, was found dead on her property around noon Friday, according to the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
The woman lived about four miles north of Ouray in a quiet, rural subdivision with large-acreage lots. The town is south of Montrose on Colorado Highway 550.
“We haven’t confirmed the cause of death yet, but this woman was found this afternoon around noon and it appeared that she had been mauled by a bear,” said Joe Lewandowski, a spokesman for the DOW.
A Ouray County Sheriff’s Department deputy, investigating the woman’s death, was attacked by a bears.
The deputy shot the bear six times with a shotgun.
“They got here about 12:30, and as they were examining the scene, a bear came out of the woods and the Ouray County sheriff’s deputy shot the bear,” Lewandowski said.
“This bear was shot, but we don’t know if that was the bear that was involved with mauling the woman.”
The woman’s death and the attack of the deputy has triggered a response from the federal government. Wildlife Services, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has been mobilized and is baiting bears onto the property with the intention of killing them, Lewandowski said.
The bears have lost their fear of humans. The woman found dead was frequently seen by neighbors feeding bears on her property, Lewandowski said.
“With this sort of habitation we don’t have any choice, and that is what is really sad. There have been as many as 14 bears that have been observed at the house,” he said.
So the unnamed Ouray County woman was known to feed bears, who were known to congregate on her property, and not her family, her neighbors, nor the authorities did anything about it until she became bear chow herself.
The entire community sat there with their heads in the sand (or somewhere) while an insane lady baited bears into their midst. And now she is dead, others have been attacked, and the bears have to be put down.
Predation, Not Habitat Loss, Governs Prey Population Dynamics
Most animal population dynamics are governed by predator-prey relations, not “habitat”. For instance, even though 25 million acres were “set aside” for spotted owls 20 years ago, their population has plunged by 60 percent or more. Yes, there have been millions of acres of old-growth owl forests destroyed by catastrophic fire, but not 60 percent. The main reason for plunging owl populations is the rising populations of their predators: great horned owls, golden eagles, peregrine falcons, and other raptors.
“Habitat loss” has been so ingrained into the mass consciousness though, it is difficult to see how that ecobabble nonsense will ever be debunked. Most scientists are brainwashed, even (especially?) wildlife biologists.
But not all. The following article appeared in the Anchorage Daily News last week. It seems that moose population dynamics are governed by predation of moose calves by bears.
Newborn moose calves battle very slim odds
by Ned Rozell, Alalska Science, Anchorage Daily News, July 18th, 2009 [here]
Any moose calf alive in mid-summer is a lucky animal. If the calf was born a twin, it has probably seen its sibling pulled down and eaten by a bear. If the calf was born alone, it probably stood close to its mother as she reared on her hind legs and pounded a predator with her hooves.
In late May all over Alaska, female moose find a secluded spot to birth a calf, twin calves or sometimes triplets. In the weeks that follow, many of these gangly newborns fall prey to bears and wolves. In most areas of Alaska, more moose calves die than survive.
Mark Bertram is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife biologist at Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. In a study he did more than a decade ago, while a helicopter pilot distracted cow moose from the air, Bertram and others scrambled to birthing sites and attached radio collars to newborn calves. By following radio signals after the calves stopped moving, the biologists were able to find dead calves and determine what killed them.
In the study at Yukon Flats, an area larger than Maryland where Alaska’s longest river reaches north of the Arctic Circle, Bertram has found the remains of a majority of the 29 moose he collared. Fifty-five percent died in one month. Three-quarters of those baby moose were killed by either black bears, which are abundant in Yukon Flats, or grizzly bears. …
“It’s real common for just 30 percent of calves to survive their first year,” Bertram said.
In studies done elsewhere in Alaska and the Yukon, the numbers agree. North of Tok, 25 percent of calves collared survived their first year.
Just 19 percent survived in a study performed in southwest Yukon. Around 30 percent made it through a year in two studies done around Galena and Nelchina.
Terry Bowyer, a biologist formerly with the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Institute of Arctic Biology, collared cow moose in Denali National Park and kept track of her young for four years.
Only five calves out of 44 made it through their first summers. A vast majority of those were killed by grizzly bears. …
Ned Rozell is a science writer at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph, 27 Jun 2009 [here]
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. …
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.
Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.
So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”. But… the bears are doing fine. [more]
Economic, Social and Cultural Impacts of Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones
Note: the following is a comment that was submitted yesterday to the US Forest Service regarding the Grizzly Bear and actions the Forest Service will be taking regarding road and land closures.
by Kevin Kimp, Idaho For Wildlife [here], June 22, 2009
To: United States Forest Service
From: Idaho For Wildlife
Re: Comments in regards to Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement — Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones
We are against any encumbrances to the people affected by the proposed DSEIS because of but not limited to the following reasons.
In talking with highly respected biologists, including Dr. Charles Kay of Utah State University, I have been told that more research is needed on sustainable bear numbers per BMU. It appears with the current land management practices implemented on our federal lands within these BMU’s there is not enough habitat to support the numbers that the USFWS is trying to obtain in the timeframe in which it is trying to obtain the numbers. Management practices to create habitat should include timber harvest and controlled burns thereby creating habitat that will grow vegetation to support an ungulate prey base which may include deer, elk, moose and wooland caribou, as well as vegetation to sustain and grow Grizzly Bear numbers.
We were informed at a KVRI (Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative) meeting, regarding Alternative E (which the USFS supports), that most units which effect Boundary County road closures, or obliterations would only occur behind locked gates and most of those roads were now brushed in and impassable. If the road is located behind a locked gate does a grizzly bear really care?
Linda McFaddan of the USFS stated “there have been several studies that prove restricting access to roads on National Forest Service Lands do not deal with the mortality issues grizzly bears face. Most of the mortalities take place on private lands, in Canada, or they’ve occurred within wilderness areas within huge blocks of forest that are far away from each other.”
Grizzly Bait and Switch Proposed
by RRS
Just some thoughts I wanted to pass along on a story I saw in a local paper. Evidently the USFS is looking for excuses to shut people out of our public forests. The latest game: lock out the public to allegedly save a growing population of not-really-endangered grizzly bears.
Here’s the article:
by Becky Kramer, Spokesman Review, May 5, 2009 [here]
Protecting grizzly bears across a 4,560-square-mile swath of the Selkirk and Cabinet mountains will require closing hundreds of miles of backcountry roads used by hunters and huckleberry pickers, the Forest Service says.
Grizzlies need secure areas to avoid contact with people, according to a new agency report. Despite 2-inch claws and a fierce reputation – the grizzly’s Latin name is Ursus arctos horribilis, or “horrible northern bear” – bears are typically the losers during encounters with humans.
Since 1982, people have killed 87 grizzlies in two grizzly bear recovery zones in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak mountains of northeastern Washington, Idaho and Western Montana.
Seventy percent of the human-caused deaths occurred near roads. Poaching and mistaking a grizzly for a black bear were two frequent reasons grizzlies were shot and killed on Forest Service lands. Self-defense by hunters was also a factor, particularly during elk season.
“Grizzly bears kill relatively few people, yet every year, we hear about grizzly deaths in the Northern Rockies,” said Mike Petersen, executive director of the Spokane-based Lands Council. “These bear mortalities are taking place near roads.” …
My thoughts: I would like to see some numbers to go with these broad statements. How many bears were poached? Hit by vehicles? Killed in self defense? Mistaken by hunters? How are roads evil? If 87 bears were killed in the last 26 years that would be about 3.3 bears per year.
How many people have been killed by grizzly bears in the last 26 years? What’s the score? Who’s ahead?
The article continues:
Over the past decade, environmental groups brought a series of lawsuits against the Forest Service, arguing that the agency needed to do more to keep people and bears apart by restricting motorized access to prime habitat areas. The litigation triggered forest plan revisions in the Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai and Lolo national forests.
The plan is out in draft form. Public comments will be accepted through June 22.
Closing roads to protect habitat is controversial, particularly when it halts people’s ability to drive or ride an ATV to well-established huckleberry picking sites or hunting areas, said Karl Dekome, the Forest Service’s team leader. An earlier draft attracted more than 300 public comments.
“People have their favorite places out there that they like to use,” he said. “When you’re talking about closing that off, it can become emotional.” …
My thoughts: I can see how the comments will go. A few locals will get fired up and write letters attempting to protect their rights with perfectly logical and sound reasons. The common sense letters will be drowned out by the mass of identical “letters” from well funded organizations that promote a dehumanized wilderness concept backed by people that have no concept of what is beyond their steel and concrete world.
More from the article:
The Forest Service reviewed two alternatives. Grizzlies would benefit most from barricading up to 1,800 miles of Forest Service roads; erecting gates on up to another 490 miles of roads; and eliminating motorized use on 57 miles of trails, according to the agency.
Forest Service officials, however, prefer a less restrictive plan that gates or barricades about 325 miles of road, while reopening other roads for motorized travel. About 30 miles of trail would close to motorized use. “It tries to strike a balance, providing sufficient habitat recovery for grizzly bears, but recognizing there are other issues and needs,” Dekome said. …
My thoughts: This is how the FS now operates. They come up with an outrageous plan, then an alternative that isn’t quite as restrictive so they can look good by “compromising”. What they are really doing is depriving people of their rights and forcing illegally conceived de facto wilderness upon the people.
More from the article:
Recreational activities would be hard-hit under the more restrictive plan, he said. Driving access to more than 22 developed recreation sites would be eliminated. The day-use area at Roman Nose, a 7,221-foot peak in Boundary County, is on the list. So are six campgrounds, three boat ramps and three picnic areas in the Kootenai National Forest.
Some hiking trails would effectively double in length. Snowmobile trails would be affected, because trail maintenance would be restricted during the summer months, Dekome said.
The ability to drive to the Lunch Peak lookout rental near Sandpoint is curtailed under both alternatives. But recreational impacts are much less severe in the Forest Service’s preferred plan, Dekome said.
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, one of the groups that sued the Forest Service, questions whether the agency’s preferred alternative is scientifically sound. Opening roads for timber sales would be allowed, said Liz Sedler, who works for the alliance in Sandpoint. She also said the grizzlies need bigger, undisturbed areas than the preferred alternative creates. …
My thoughts: The mentality of locking it up and letting it burn is more detrimental to habitat than trying manage for a healthy forest. Locking out We the People is against our rights, and heavily discriminates against the poor and elderly. Its very selfish of these organizations to “save the wilderness” so they can be occasionally visited by the wealthy and fit.
ESA Captured By Monkey Wrenchers
$5 Per Gallon Gasoline! Reason: Endangered Species Act
by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, March 16, 2009 [here]
The intro to an excellent analysis:
That shouldn’t make a lick of sense unless of course scientists were to discover some rare and endangered species living deep beneath the earth where oil and natural gas reserves lie. But this is what has become of our beloved Endangered Species Act, a legal document devised in 1973 that was intended to help prevent the man-made destruction of animal and plant life.
Last year the Bush administration decided to list the polar bear as a species that is threatened - meaning that there is a possibility that if we don’t pay close attention to this animal, certain circumstances could put the bear in danger of going extinct. We don’t want that but was it necessary?
I guess it depends on whose science we opt to use and how much politicking comes into play. It appears that the Bush administration attempted to play politics instead of opting for science and fighting the battle based on that.
After the listing was announced, the Bush people tried to pull a double whammy political back 2 and one half somersault. They crafted an executive order that said lawsuits couldn’t be filed to stop energy production, or any other carbon emitting project, based on perceived global warming threats to polar bears. This of course makes about as much sense as pouring gasoline on a fire. The reason Bush and Kempthorne claimed for listing the polar bear was because of shrinking Arctic ice caused by global warming. Politics as usual.
Now with Obama in office and having recently overturned that sneaky little attempt by Kempthorne to prevent lawsuits, the door has been left wide open, welcoming with open arms any and every lawsuit known to mankind that might have an affect on polar bears. How creative can you get? … [more]
