So now they want to close roads and access

[Bisch]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/university-of-alberta-grizzly-population-1.4478458

Study says that grizzly populations have declined because there are roads...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Newview01]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/university-of-alberta-grizzly-population-1.4478458

Study says that grizzly populations have declined because there are roads...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But other studies have shown grizz populations are on the rise...

[pikergolf]

Wow, 1.6 km of road for every square km of land. Maybe put in a few parking lots as well.

[Taco]

Wow, 1.6 km of road for every square km of land. Maybe put in a few parking lots as well.

Yup

[Albertadiver]

....sigh

[Etownguy]

I'm curious, how many of the above posters read the actual published article? Of those who did, which part(s) of the data collection, statistical analysis, and/or interpretation did you disagree with?

[CritterCommander]

There are studies to support virtually any position anyone wants to take on just about topic, too easy to cherry pick what you want to advocate. Who knows what the truth is anymore. Comes down to whoever has the best funding and publishing mechanisms. And no respectably researcher would ever consult with locals and give their observations any weight.......

Meh.

[Termender]

Linear disturbances have long been known to negatively correlate with grizzly numbers, so it's no surprise that higher road/trail densities are a negative factor.

[Etownguy]

There are studies to support virtually any position anyone wants to take on just about topic, too easy to cherry pick what you want to advocate. Who knows what the truth is anymore. Comes down to whoever has the best funding and publishing mechanisms. And no respectably researcher would ever consult with locals and give their observations any weight.......

Meh.

So I'll ask again. Did you read the study? Which parts, specifically, do you disagree with? What page?

[Taco]

Didn't read THAT exact study but I've read others that agree about the impact of roads on wildlife so yeah I believe to above CBC article, any Y2Y conspiracy BS aside.

[Taco]

Hell I've personally witnessed the impact on many species of wildlife

[walking buffalo]

I'm curious, how many of the above posters read the actual published article? Of those who did, which part(s) of the data collection, statistical analysis, and/or interpretation did you disagree with?

Did you read it? just curious....
What do you think about that statement on page 16?



I liked this statement from the research paper..

"We documented an ~50% increase in bear density since 1997 "


The current road density is not much of a problem for bears in this area as long as unregulated hunting is sufficiently suppressed.


The STUDENT that wrote this paper is just getting his feet wet, following the paved path of least resistance for his acceptance into the professional world.

No new ground being stepped on, which is good? :thinking-006:


A study of Grizzly Bears in WMU 212 would be enlightening.

This area has a high bear density with an astounding recruitment rate despite a road density 4-5 times higher. And the human presence....


I spent the summer Away from a favourite swamp in a section of land at 70st and Anderson road SW beside Calgary. Momma Grizz and two kids took up residence here, surrounded by half a dozen houses, a couple dozen dogs and cattle, horses, grain farming.... They were quite content. They finally left for a walkabout in the fall, taking the SW Ring Road south, weaving past dump trucks and loaders, hundreds of workers, without a care in the world.


Nature is resilient. Bears are tough buggers! Give them a chance to survive and they will thrive, at a cost to other living creatures.


Covering our tracks after industrial activity is a good thing. Hunters should be proponents of road deactivation being standard operating procedure. Not so much for the bears, but specifically for wolf reduction...

[SlimChance]

There are studies to support virtually any position anyone wants to take on just about topic, too easy to cherry pick what you want to advocate. Who knows what the truth is anymore. Comes down to whoever has the best funding and publishing mechanisms. And no respectably researcher would ever consult with locals and give their observations any weight.......

Meh.

One study is interesting but essentially meaningless. When we have a large number of studies with broadly similar conclusions, we can be fairly certain we're correct.

In this case, there are already studies in other areas that suggest that road density impacts grizzly populations.

[SlimChance]

I liked this statement from the research paper..

"We documented an ~50% increase in bear density since 1997 "


The current road density is not much of a problem for bears in this area as long as unregulated hunting is sufficiently suppressed.



The full statement attributes the population increase to road closures in 1997.

The roads, as structures, appear to not matter much (and may be beneficial for travel). Traffic on the roads is what appears to be detrimental.

[walking buffalo]

One study is interesting but essentially meaningless. When we have a large number of studies with broadly similar conclusions, we can be fairly certain we're correct.

In this case, there are already studies in other areas that suggest that road density impacts grizzly populations.

Sure, but those suggestions need to be qualified.

Lots of researchers can not leave their bias at the door. Having several researchers being taught the same bias as a route to a career does not make the science any more valid.

The lead author of this paper made a very revealing statement in his debut.

"The Provincially threatened Grizzly Bear population"


Uh, BC's G Bears are NOT threatened!

There Auditor General recently reviewed this issue and confirmed that these bears are doing great. The political leaders even stated that the reason for banning G bear hunting is NOT because they are threatened but because they don't like it.

For the author to make such a statement flies in the face of science!

I'm not against reducing road densities.
I am against biased research.

[Etownguy]

Did you read it? just curious....
What do you think about that statement on page 16?



I did. The paper is 12 pages long in PDF format, so no page 16 but nice try. :)
For those interested in the article itself (not the CBC summary), the link is:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13056/epdf


I liked this statement from the research paper..
"We documented an ~50% increase in bear density since 1997 "


Increases are nice to see, although % increases sometimes are difficult to interpret without the context of actual density estimates. Note that the author (via Twitter) has replied that the 50% increase was due to several management factors. The line currently in the abstract attributing the 50% solely to road closures was apparently a typo that is getting corrected. Road closures were responsible for 27% increases in bear density.

https://twitter.com/ClaytonTLamb/status/950639574652506112

[walking buffalo]

The full statement attributes the population increase to road closures in 1997.

The roads, as structures, appear to not matter much (and may be beneficial for travel). Traffic on the roads is what appears to be detrimental.

And that is garbage.
Increased enforcement and public attitudes reduced mortality rates.

The student author needs to read and understand some history.

Was the G Bear population increase in the neighbouring Okanagan due to road closures?


The kid is studying roads, this is his path to a doctorate.
He is focused. I get it. See it all the time.

[walking buffalo]

I did. The paper is 12 pages long in PDF format, so no page 16 but nice try. :)


My review copy has 37 pages.

I noted the statement in a previous post.

"Provincially threatened Grizzly bear population"

[Termender]

My review copy has 37 pages.

I noted the statement in a previous post.

"Provincially threatened Grizzly bear population"


That statement is very qualified as pertaining ONLY to a sub-population in a specific area.

From the paper (I too only have the 12 page one, can you post a link to the 37 page one you referenced?):

Our study focused on a provincially threatened grizzly bear popula-tion, the Kettle–Granby Grizzly Bear Population Unit (GBPU; Figure 1), at the species’ southern range margin in south- central British Columbia (BC). This population was designated as provincially threatened based on a 1997 population inventory [38 bears (95% CI: 23–53), Boulanger, 2000; Boulanger et al., 2002] that estimated the population to be less than half the habitat- based carrying capacity (Gyug & Hamilton, 2007). Both prior to and following the 1997 population inventory, land and wildlife managers in the area undertook management actions to re-cover grizzly bears and maintain wilderness in an increasingly industri-alised landscape. As is typical in many management scenarios, multiple management actions were enacted. Grizzly bear hunting was closed in the Kettle–Granby GBPU in 1995 because the bear population was thought to be declining. Between 1985 and 2001,

[Etownguy]

My review copy has 37 pages.

I noted the statement in a previous post.

"Provincially threatened Grizzly bear population"

Unless I missed it elsewhere in the article, the text I see appears to refer only to the Kettle-Granby population rather than the entire population of the province. (I'm looking at the 3rd paragraph in the Introduction). Perhaps it is mentioned elsewhere?

If you go to the BC gov't page (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-bears.html) and click on that GBPU, this pop'n is listed as threatened due to being <50% lower than carrying capacity.

Perhaps your review document was edited/revised before publication (as commonly happens)?

[SlimChance]

Sure, but those suggestions need to be qualified.

Lots of researchers can not leave their bias at the door. Having several researchers being taught the same bias as a route to a career does not make the science any more valid.

The lead author of this paper made a very revealing statement in his debut.

"The Provincially threatened Grizzly Bear population"


Uh, BC's G Bears are NOT threatened!


For the author to make such a statement flies in the face of science!

I'm not against reducing road densities.
I am against biased research.

The population being studied is listed as threatened.
Speaking of leaving biases at the door...



And that is garbage.
Increased enforcement and public attitudes reduced mortality rates.

The student author needs to read and understand some history.

Was the G Bear population increase in the neighbouring Okanagan due to road closures?


The kid is studying roads, this is his path to a doctorate.
He is focused. I get it. See it all the time.

He attributes the increase in population to revised management, resulting from the 1997 population survey (and states that several management changes occurred).

However, do you have any actual evidence that the population increase was due to enforcement and attitude?

Or is this more bias creeping in? From reading his paper (and not just the abstract) he seems to acknowledge that they don't know for certain which management changes were most effective.

[walking buffalo]

You guys are misreading what he wrote.

"We show that the provincially threatened grizzly bear population in the Kettle-Granby GBPU has increased since the previous estimate in 1997. "

The Provincially Threatened Grizzly bear Population....

One needs to study the language a researcher uses to understand their perspective and possible bias.

The fact he states "Provincially Threatened" when this is False gives evidence to a desire Exclaim harm, potentially even where it does not exist.


I haven't looked recent, but I would be surprised to learn that the study population is officially listed as threatened.

I think he is using a buzzword.....

---

Let's expand on the concern.

How is it possible that the Okanagan Grizzly bear population has Exploded over the last twenty years despite what may be the highest road density, poor bear habitat and NO road closures?


One fault with many wildlife research project is the lack of a control to value variances objectively. Without a comparable, the conclusions tend to be just conjecture. Conjecture entwined with bias results in poor science.


We have Many grizzly bear populations in North America that are doing great despite living in areas of high road densities and high human activity and settlement.

Sure bears will spend more time where they are undisturbed. But this does not mean that bears and slow travel roads do not co-exist just fine.


Now highways and train tracks are a different story for bears. These do trend to be a mortality sink.

[walking buffalo]

Unless I missed it elsewhere in the article, the text I see appears to refer only to the Kettle-Granby population rather than the entire population of the province. (I'm looking at the 3rd paragraph in the Introduction). Perhaps it is mentioned elsewhere?

If you go to the BC gov't page (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-bears.html) and click on that GBPU, this pop'n is listed as threatened due to being <50% lower than carrying capacity.

Perhaps your review document was edited/revised before publication (as commonly happens)?

Thanks for the link to the gov page.
Will be interesting to learn the new qualifiers for "Threatened" status.
What is the threshold for a non-threatened status, 70-80-90-100% of carrying capacity? How do they determine carrying capacity?

Is this really a bar we should be reaching for, carrying capacity for all wildlife all the time?
It doesn't make sense, Nature does not work that way. This is fantasy.


This is the beauty of preview copies. Sometimes they give insight to individual bias that may be covered up through editing.
Censoring the researcher's mindset does not prevent the existence of clouded objectivity.

[Etownguy]

You guys are misreading what he wrote.

"We show that the provincially threatened grizzly bear population in the Kettle-Granby GBPU has increased since the previous estimate in 1997. "

The Provincially Threatened Grizzly bear Population....


Can you tell me where you see this in the published article? Link here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13056/epdf


I haven't looked recent, but I would be surprised to learn that the study population is officially listed as threatened.


I posted the link above to the provincial website for the Kettle-Granby population where it is listed as threatened. The language used is quite clear.

[Etownguy]

Thanks for the link to the gov page.
Will be interesting to learn the new qualifiers for "Threatened" status.
What is the threshold for a non-threatened status, 70-80-90-100% of carrying capacity? How do they determine carrying capacity?

Is this really a bar we should be reaching for, carrying capacity for all wildlife all the time?
It doesn't make sense, Nature does not work that way. This is fantasy.


This is the beauty of preview copies. Sometimes they give insight to individual bias that may be covered up through editing.
Censoring the researcher's mindset does not prevent the existence of clouded objectivity.

Our last two posts crossed in cyberspace.

[CMichaud]

The STUDENT that wrote this paper is just getting his feet wet, following the paved path of least resistance for his acceptance into the professional world.

Nature is resilient. Bears are tough buggers! Give them a chance to survive and they will thrive, at a cost to other living creatures.


Covering our tracks after industrial activity is a good thing. Hunters should be proponents of road deactivation being standard operating procedure. Not so much for the bears, but specifically for wolf reduction...

Completely agree. Was just talking with a buddy about the requirement for some ground breaking thesis vs the path of least resistance.

My suspicion is that the bears probably don't give a damn about the roads and they might even assist them with creating mobility corridors. I do not reckon that these impact them at all (unless we are talking highways where they tend to get hit by vehicles operating at high speed)

[SlimChance]

You guys are misreading what he wrote.

"We show that the provincially threatened grizzly bear population in the Kettle-Granby GBPU has increased since the previous estimate in 1997. "

The Provincially Threatened Grizzly bear Population....

One needs to study the language a researcher uses to understand their perspective and possible bias.

The fact he states "Provincially Threatened" when this is False gives evidence to a desire Exclaim harm, potentially even where it does not exist.


I haven't looked recent, but I would be surprised to learn that the study population is officially listed as threatened.

I think he is using a buzzword.....

---

Let's expand on the concern.

How is it possible that the Okanagan Grizzly bear population has Exploded over the last twenty years despite what may be the highest road density, poor bear habitat and NO road closures?


One fault with many wildlife research project is the lack of a control to value variances objectively. Without a comparable, the conclusions tend to be just conjecture. Conjecture entwined with bias results in poor science.


We have Many grizzly bear populations in North America that are doing great despite living in areas of high road densities and high human activity and settlement.

Sure bears will spend more time where they are undisturbed. But this does not mean that bears and slow travel roads do not co-exist just fine.


Now highways and train tracks are a different story for bears. These do trend to be a mortality sink.

I read that as "provincially classified as threatened" which would be correct.

It honestly seems like you're reading bias into the paper where there's no evidence it exists.

There's a link below to an interview he did regarding some previous research in the East Kootenays. What stuck out to me is that he went out of his way to point out that it wasn't hunting that caused the decline noted in that study. He stops short of vindicating grizzly hunting, but seems to deliberately avoid an easy anti-hunting stance.

https://www.ualberta.ca/science/science-news/2016/september/grizzly-bears-face-ecological-trap

His findings seem to correlate with previous research. That may be an effect of designing a safe study but may just as well be an effect of compounding evidence.

[panko]

I personally talked to the two fellows that wrapped the scratching trees in the 400 they were camped in racehorse creek getting ready to do 402 and they told me there are 300 different bears in 400. This was in 2015. Sounds like those roads are really bothering.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

The bears are important but how far are they willing to go? This sounds ridiculous.:thinking-006: how will the city folk see the back country?

[parfleche]

I,m not sure how much road they would like to ban ,or where ,But why would they not close off one area or perhaps a wmu and see what results they get ? Like make one zone excluded from all to enter for how ever long ?
They are now talking of releasing the Banff bison where the wolves will be able to predate on them as they once did , I am not a scientist but the results from that will likely be that the bison will leave the area and come down to where the wolves are not as the moose have and become a problem for the folks in the parkland areas , busted fences, over ridden grain crops , vehicle collisions etc .

[Joe Black]

Wonder why they didnt think of this sooner. Why just ban ATV's when you can close the road which will ban ATV's, fishers, hunters, horse trailers, et, et.

Still think this governments agenda won't affect you?

[gitrdun]

double tap.

[gitrdun]

Close 'em all and lock 'em up. I've seen enough abuse to warrant it. Even as of today and yesterday. :):):):):sHa_shakeshout::sHa_shakeshout::sHa_shake shout:

[CF8889]

North America has gotten so lazy that even outdoorsmen are outraged by the idea they might have to hike more then 1km to their spot...

[gitrdun]

North America has gotten so lazy that even outdoorsmen are outraged by the idea they might have to hike more then 1km to their spot...

Nailed it. :)

[Joe Black]

I can deal with 1 km. 40 could be a bit much don't you think?

[Big Grey Wolf]

Grizzly bears need true wilderness. Do you ever wonder why almost half of our grizzly bear population is in the Willmore BMA 4. Only area in province where no cut blocks, roads, oilwells, pipelines and ATV,s. Do I need to say more.

[Joe Black]

"I spent the summer Away from a favourite swamp in a section of land at 70st and Anderson road SW beside Calgary. Momma Grizz and two kids took up residence here, surrounded by half a dozen houses, a couple dozen dogs and cattle, horses, grain farming.... They were quite content. They finally left for a walkabout in the fall, taking the SW Ring Road south, weaving past dump trucks and loaders, hundreds of workers, without a care in the world."


as a previous post brought up.

Does he need to say more?

[dmcbride]

Grizzly bears need true wilderness. Do you ever wonder why almost half of our grizzly bear population is in the Willmore BMA 4. Only area in province where no cut blocks, roads, oilwells, pipelines and ATV,s. Do I need to say more.

Was this 20 years ago?

[Etownguy]

"I spent the summer Away from a favourite swamp in a section of land at 70st and Anderson road SW beside Calgary. Momma Grizz and two kids took up residence here, surrounded by half a dozen houses, a couple dozen dogs and cattle, horses, grain farming.... They were quite content. They finally left for a walkabout in the fall, taking the SW Ring Road south, weaving past dump trucks and loaders, hundreds of workers, without a care in the world."


as a previous post brought up.

Does he need to say more?

This is an interesting anecdote, but does not constitute a dataset that could be used to conclude anything meaningful.

I was once observed at a Calgary Flames game, but that does not constitute my preferred habitat.

[Joe Black]

great point. i would love to see the dataset comparing road density in the land area between Calgary, Okotoks and Olds to kananaskis, vs grizzly population found in that area.

oh wait, those stats would totally contradict the statement "Higher road density leads to lower grizzly bear density" as stated by ecologist Clayton Lamb, a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta.

never mind. we wont do that study. that "science" doesn't support our agenda.

[Bushrat]

Grizzly bears need true wilderness. Do you ever wonder why almost half of our grizzly bear population is in the Willmore BMA 4. Only area in province where no cut blocks, roads, oilwells, pipelines and ATV,s. Do I need to say more.

You must be watching too much National Geographic. Your not giving them the credit they deserve. Grizzly can do quite well in well heavily roaded busy environments once they become adapted and conditioned to them especially after a generation or two of breeding and young bears born and raised in those environments it becomes normal to them as that's all they know. Same way wolves have adapted to them. Look at how National Park grizzlies pay no attention to people and traffic. Grizzlies are a very adaptable animal.

[SlimChance]

great point. i would love to see the dataset comparing road density in the land area between Calgary, Okotoks and Olds to kananaskis, vs grizzly population found in that area.

oh wait, those stats would totally contradict the statement "Higher road density leads to lower grizzly bear density" as stated by ecologist Clayton Lamb, a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta.

never mind. we wont do that study. that "science" doesn't support our agenda.

It took less time to find a study than to type a reply...

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z03-123

That science HAS been done and the findings were basically the same as Lamb's new study.

[SlimChance]

You must be watching too much National Geographic. Your not giving them the credit they deserve. Grizzly can do quite well in well heavily roaded busy environments once they become adapted and conditioned to them especially after a generation or two of breeding and young bears born and raised in those environments it becomes normal to them as that's all they know. Same way wolves have adapted to them. Look at how National Park grizzlies pay no attention to people and traffic. Grizzlies are a very adaptable animal.

And mortality rates are much higher among those adapted populations.

[Etownguy]

You must be watching too much National Geographic. Your not giving them the credit they deserve. Grizzly can do quite well in well heavily roaded busy environments once they become adapted and conditioned to them especially after a generation or two of breeding and young bears born and raised in those environments it becomes normal to them as that's all they know. Same way wolves have adapted to them. Look at how National Park grizzlies pay no attention to people and traffic. Grizzlies are a very adaptable animal.

You mean the same way grizzlies and wolves adapted so well to human activity that they now occupy a fraction of their historic species range?

[Joe Black]

It took less time to find a study than to type a reply...

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z03-123

That science HAS been done and the findings were basically the same as Lamb's new study.


Excellent read about bear activity during berry and preberry seasons(mind you the paper is 15 years old ).

Regardless, where is the part where it compares the specific road densities in that area relative to the population again?(and I did state the area from urban centres like Calgary to kananskis, not the bow corridor). Just wanted to see how the findings are “basically the same”. Seems difficult to do if the do not use the same base lines.


But I guess we all just need to believe you that the science is there, if you interpret it the right way that is.

[Joe Black]

You mean the same way grizzlies and wolves adapted so well to human activity that they now occupy a fraction of their historic species range?

And still manage to be a main source of wildlife predication. All the darwinists should be proud.

[pikergolf]

You mean the same way grizzlies and wolves adapted so well to human activity that they now occupy a fraction of their historic species range?

In actuality they were killed off in there historic ranges and they are spreading back into their historic ranges now that they are protected. In my personal belief this is not a good thing as human, animal, bad interactions are not far behind. I believe that in my life time there will be grizzlies in the Cypress Hills again.

[Newview01]

In actuality they were killed off in there historic ranges and they are spreading back into their historic ranges now that they are protected. In my personal belief this is not a good thing as human, animal, bad interactions are not far behind. I believe that in my life time there will be grizzlies in the Cypress Hills again.

Im willing to bet they are there already. I know in Montana they are getting awful close to that area. Usually means they are even further than we know.

[MountainTi]

Grizzly bears need true wilderness. Do you ever wonder why almost half of our grizzly bear population is in the Willmore BMA 4. Only area in province where no cut blocks, roads, oilwells, pipelines and ATV,s. Do I need to say more?.

No thanks


Gbears are doing just fine in areas where there is an east/west road every 2 miles and a north/south road every mile.
Ever hear about the 23 gbears on an oat pile up in Elmworth country? Roads, fields, oilwells, atv's ect....didn't seem to bother them that much.

[CF8889]

Correct me if I am wrong.. but this study isn't saying "grizzly bears can't and won't live in high road density areas!", it's saying "in general, Grizzly bears tend to thrive and take to areas that have lower road density".

[Bushrat]

And mortality rates are much higher among those adapted populations.

That's probably a good thing, do we really want them adapting and roaming closer to more habituated areas, do you want them in the suburbs of Calgary(they turn up there quite often), Edmonton and Red Deer, etcÉ

[Bushrat]

You mean the same way grizzlies and wolves adapted so well to human activity that they now occupy a fraction of their historic species range?

They were killed, trapped and poisoned off. If that hadn't happened they would be wandering the streets of our cities like coyotes which we didn't kill off. Perhaps we should take the problem bears and dump them around Winnipeg, Regina and other places where they used to roam to rebuild their historic population there?

[Joe Black]

Correct me if I am wrong.. but this study isn't saying "grizzly bears can't and won't live in high road density areas!", it's saying "in general, Grizzly bears tend to thrive and take to areas that have lower road density".

And BC's response to similiar data was to close roads(access) to all but a few users. A means to "their" end.

You could use the exact same argument to put in more roads in these areas saying " we've done a study that bears can live in high road density areas".

That's how stupid this logic is. But then again, some people today won't be happy till there is zero impact on nature by humans. These are the same people that believe it is always someone else causing all the problems, and they, as humans inhabiting the earth, cause no global issues. Hypocrites.

[SlimChance]

Excellent read about bear activity during berry and preberry seasons

You read a paper titled "Relationships among grizzly bears, highways, and habitat in the Banff-Bow Valley, Alberta, Canada" and concluded that it was about berry season?

Maybe, just maybe it was actually a study about Grizzly Bears and Highways...



Regardless, where is the part where it compares the specific road densities in that area relative to the population again?(and I did state the area from urban centres like Calgary to kananskis, not the bow corridor). Just wanted to see how the findings are “basically the same”. Seems difficult to do if the do not use the same base lines.


It doesn't compare road densities, but it does examine bear behaviour around both high and low volume roads in the area west of Calgary (I figured that was close enough - unless you're suggesting that the bears between Calgary and Kananaskis behave differently from the bears in the Bow Valley, Northern Montana and Hinton (which have all been studied).

Studies examining road density and grizzly populations exist for Northern Montana and Hinton/Grande Cache, if you want to read them (both are cited in Lamb's study).

Either way, the study I posted found that, while bears tended to habituate to roads better in the Bow Valley, likely owing to higher traffice volumes, bear mortality was high along all roads (and higher on low volume roads than on high volume roads) and, that roads tended to create barriers to bear movement. They concluded this lack of permeability is likely to negatively affect populations.

That's a roughly similar conclusion to Lamb's - that roads negatively affect Grizzly populations.


But I guess we all just need to believe you that the science is there, if you interpret it the right way that is.

You'd rather believe that there's some kind of conspiracy among biologists to skew data and close the backcountry off to people than to consider the possibility that roads negatively affect Grizzlies?

[Joe Black]

So that reply took a bit longer did it?

[CF8889]

And BC's response to similiar data was to close roads(access) to all but a few users. A means to "their" end.

You could use the exact same argument to put in more roads in these areas saying " we've done a study that bears can live in high road density areas".

That's how stupid this logic is. But then again, some people today won't be happy till there is zero impact on nature by humans. These are the same people that believe it is always someone else causing all the problems, and they, as humans inhabiting the earth, cause no global issues. Hypocrites.

No.

One would say "we've done studies and most bears do better in low road density areas. So we are reducing roads in the back country".

The other would say "we've done studies and occasionally bears survive and live in high road density areas. So we are adding roads to the backcountry".


Very different

[walking buffalo]

It took less time to find a study than to type a reply...

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z03-123

That science HAS been done and the findings were basically the same as Lamb's new study.

Pretty much what I said earlier in this thread.
High speed highways and train-tracks are a real hazard to Grizzly Bears.


This study is a comparison between a single decommissioned road (Cascade Fire road) and four highways classified into two groups, high volume (Trans Canada) and low volume (Hwy 93, 40 and Bow Valley).

So they proved bears are less disturbed in the bush than when by the Trans Canada Highway. And even less so than on 40 0r 93 where people get out to take a picture. Well done....
I agree that this study shows that bears might do better with the complete elimination of man and our vehicles.



Again, the roads are not an issue to bear survival, the only issue is the actions of people and their vehicles when using these roads.


It sure doesn't tell us anything about how or why bears are doing great in high density road and human residential areas in the foothills, southern mountains and forestry areas.

Maybe we don't give Grizzlies their due.

They real ones are not made of porcelain, polyethylene or soapstone.

They are much more resilient than science has given them credit for.

[wildbill]

The bears are important but how far are they willing to go? This sounds ridiculous.:thinking-006: how will the city folk see the back country?

They should start by shutting down all the roads in the cities and restore the cities to their natural habitat, or shut their big, dumb, useless, pie holes! Notice how they never talk about shutting down ski hills or national parks, it's a big hidden agenda run by misinformed cityiots, people just keep getting stupider and stupider. Is this what need? We don't kill enough problem bears as it is? We need to kill more?

[Bushrat]

You read a paper titled "Relationships among grizzly bears, highways, and habitat in the Banff-Bow Valley, Alberta, Canada" and concluded that it was about berry season?

Maybe, just maybe it was actually a study about Grizzly Bears and Highways...




It doesn't compare road densities, but it does examine bear behaviour around both high and low volume roads in the area west of Calgary (I figured that was close enough - unless you're suggesting that the bears between Calgary and Kananaskis behave differently from the bears in the Bow Valley, Northern Montana and Hinton (which have all been studied).

Studies examining road density and grizzly populations exist for Northern Montana and Hinton/Grande Cache, if you want to read them (both are cited in Lamb's study).

Either way, the study I posted found that, while bears tended to habituate to roads better in the Bow Valley, likely owing to higher traffice volumes, bear mortality was high along all roads (and higher on low volume roads than on high volume roads) and, that roads tended to create barriers to bear movement. They concluded this lack of permeability is likely to negatively affect populations.

That's a roughly similar conclusion to Lamb's - that roads negatively affect Grizzly populations.



You'd rather believe that there's some kind of conspiracy among biologists to skew data and close the backcountry off to people than to consider the possibility that roads negatively affect Grizzlies?

Roads negatively affect grizzlies the same way they negatively affect black bears, elk, moose, deer, and every other critter that is commonly killed on roads or displaced by development. It is just another additional mortality factor added on to many others but it is not necessarily a cause that prevents or discourages them from living in these areas.

You could say grizzly bears negatively affect grizzly bear populations as boars tend to kill cubs if given the opportunity and is one of the reasons younger bears disperse when bear populations are at a saturation point in the best natural habitat, often dispersing to human habitated areas where they may not be a good fit.

I wouldn't agree that biologists are conspiring to skew data, (meaning real biologists who only present facts), but there are definitely 'biologists' hired that are hired because of their bias to produce biased reports for various advocate groups to skew and sway opinion to suit certain agendas.

This whole thing is rendering down to become a fight over land appropriation between different advocacy groups be it preservationists, industry, recreationalists, etc, who will by hook or by crook use any means , deceptive ones if they think it will advance their particular agenda. Grizzly bears are more and more being used as pawns to advance these agendas meanwhile the growth of their populations and resultant re colonization and return into historic habitat that may not be suitable today because of human habitation and development is being ignored.

Whether folks like it or not grizzly populations need ( will need ) to be managed for the good of the bears in suitable areas, not to advance the desires of any particular special interest group..

[SlimChance]

I agree that this study shows that bears might do better with the complete elimination of man and our vehicles.


And yet you've attacked a study suggesting that fewer roads (meaning less traffic) would be beneficial for bears.

Which is it?

Lamb's study didn't advocate for closing the backcountry to people, nor did it advocate stopping hunting. It simply said that in a region of south-easter BC, road density was negatively linked to grizzly populations.


Again, the roads are not an issue to bear survival, the only issue is the actions of people and their vehicles when using these roads.


I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. Lamb went out of his way to clarify exactly that, when asked. He also went out of his way to not blame hunters when interviewed in a previous study.


Roads negatively affect grizzlies the same way they negatively affect black bears, elk, moose, deer, and every other critter that is commonly killed on roads or displaced by development. It is just another additional mortality factor added on to many others but it is not necessarily a cause that prevents or discourages them from living in these areas.

You could say grizzly bears negatively affect grizzly bear populations as boars tend to kill cubs if given the opportunity and is one of the reasons younger bears disperse when bear populations are at a saturation point in the best natural habitat, often dispersing to human habitated areas where they may not be a good fit.


The only thing I would add to this is that most studies suggest that bears - even the habituated bears in the Bow Valley - didn't like crossing roads, so they tended to pile up where they would otherwise disperse.


I wouldn't agree that biologists are conspiring to skew data, (meaning real biologists who only present facts), but there are definitely 'biologists' hired that are hired because of their bias to produce biased reports for various advocate groups to skew and sway opinion to suit certain agendas.


And we're arguing over a paper written by a phD candidate from the University of Alberta. He's not "hired" by anybody. His project was funded mostly by a scholarship foundation and the BC government.

Generally, we can look at the entire body of work done on a subject if we're concerned about bias. In this case, his paper is pretty much in line with the body of work.

I'd be dubious if we had 20 papers that said bears love roads and he wrote a paper saying roads are killing bears, but that's not the case.


This whole thing is rendering down to become a fight over land appropriation between different advocacy groups be it preservationists, industry, recreationalists, etc, who will by hook or by crook use any means , deceptive ones if they think it will advance their particular agenda. Grizzly bears are more and more being used as pawns to advance these agendas meanwhile the growth of their populations and resultant re colonization and return into historic habitat that may not be suitable today because of human habitation and development is being ignored.

Whether folks like it or not grizzly populations need ( will need ) to be managed for the good of the bears in suitable areas, not to advance the desires of any particular special interest group..

I think this is why we, as a stakeholder group, need to embrace science rather than fight it.

If we can absorb factual information into our position, it makes it more difficult (though not impossible) for special interest groups to take advantage.

[Joe Black]

"And yet you've attacked a study suggesting that fewer roads (meaning less traffic) would be beneficial for bears. "

"Which is it?"


could it not be both meaning you don't need a knee jerk reaction like stopping all access completely?


"Lamb's study didn't advocate for closing the backcountry to people, nor did it advocate stopping hunting. It simply said that in a region of south-easter BC, road density was negatively linked to grizzly populations."

no. he'll let Shannon cherry pick the data she wants to further her agenda.

[slough shark]

Big issue in all of this the governments of the day look at a study like this and say oh wow we can’t have any more o&g, forestry development in the mountains because of roads, they will then turn it into a park. Sure this stops that development but then they turn around and develop it for tourism and traffic explodes. I would bet that if they were to mark on the map where bears were killed by vehicles and trains most of them would be in the parks and protected areas. How much do you want to bet that grizzly mortality will increase in the castle area now that they made it a park? I’ve already heard of big plans to increase tourism...

[CF8889]

Big issue in all of this the governments of the day look at a study like this and say oh wow we can’t have any more o&g, forestry development in the mountains because of roads, they will then turn it into a park. Sure this stops that development but then they turn around and develop it for tourism and traffic explodes. I would bet that if they were to mark on the map where bears were killed by vehicles and trains most of them would be in the parks and protected areas. How much do you want to bet that grizzly mortality will increase in the castle area now that they made it a park? I’ve already heard of big plans to increase tourism...

https://mobile.twitter.com/claytontlamb/status/948217120239652865?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc% 5Eios%7Ctwgr%5Ecom.apple.UIKit.activity.PostToFace book

Posted by the guy who's paper this thread is based on

[slough shark]

https://mobile.twitter.com/claytontlamb/status/948217120239652865?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc% 5Eios%7Ctwgr%5Ecom.apple.UIKit.activity.PostToFace book

Posted by the guy who's paper this thread is based on

Just as I suspected, you make it a park and then come tourists, shortly after that the bears start dying. Best thing they can do is limit development and put in requirements to reclaim logging roads in a fairly strict timeline (logging often seems to help the Grizzlies as we generally put out fires quickly and grizzlies like the new forests). The whole mountain area can’t be the wilmore wilderness area as they are important economically so we must simply minimize effects of the development and stop developing the whole area for tourism.

[SlimChance]

Just as I suspected, you make it a park and then come tourists, shortly after that the bears start dying. Best thing they can do is limit development and put in requirements to reclaim logging roads in a fairly strict timeline (logging often seems to help the Grizzlies as we generally put out fires quickly and grizzlies like the new forests). The whole mountain area can’t be the wilmore wilderness area as they are important economically so we must simply minimize effects of the development and stop developing the whole area for tourism.

That seems like an entirely reasonable and balanced approach.

[CF8889]

Unfortunately, this "us vs. them" attitude gets us nowhere but too far to either side. A middle ground would be nice. However, I don't see either side being willing to work with the other, anytime soon.