Grizzly Activists Want to Limit Access to Habitat Areas - Blaming Humans for deaths of the 'endangered' Grizzly

[Albertadiver]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...43421-sun.html

Tue, February 3, 2009

Bear deaths blamed on humansUPDATED: 2009-02-03 02:40:40 MST

Call for restricted habitat

By RENATO GANDIA, SUN MEDIA

Human-caused grizzly bear deaths have dramatically spiked and conservationists want the province to expedite on-ground action to save the furry Alberta icons.

Nineteen out of 20 bear deaths last year were caused by human activities, a more than 100% increase from nine deaths in 2007.

The bears were killed by people in various situations, including six in self-defence, six problem bears slain by conservation authorities, four in accidents, two were killed by Natives for food and one was poached illegally, says the Alberta Sustainable Resource website.

Conservationists are calling on the government to tighten access to bear habitats by trail bikes, ATVs and four-wheel drive vehicles.

"We have been asking that for years," said Carl Morrison with the Action Grizzly Bear, adding that although the high number is discouraging it shows that humans have the ability to reduce their impact on bears.

Darcy Whiteside, a spokesman for Sustainable Resource Development, said the province is looking at reducing open-road access to the habitats.

"The goal is to reduce human-bear interaction," he said.

But Morrison argues that the process currently underway to assess open routes will take too long and is only examining four-wheel vehicle routes.

"This will not provide an accurate representation of open route densities," said Morrison.

"Before this process actually results in any reduction of route densities we will likely see further degradation of the habitat it is intended to protect and as a consequence, more dead bears."

Whiteside said the province takes the problem seriously but everyone needs to help.

"We all have a role to play in grizzly bear management."

______________

I know there were a few threads about Grizzly numbers a while back. Too bad anecdotal evidence can't be used in those reports. Judging by all the sightings etc, there are a heck of a lot more out there than these misguided PETA type folks think.

One more stupid excuse to try to limit access to land that we all have a right to enjoy.

I don't own a quad or a jeep etc, but I do not like the idea of more ridiculous rules to further restrict peoples ability to make decisions for themselves. I do take the dakota out once in a while...

[Tuc]

Judging by all the sightings etc, there are a heck of a lot more out there than these misguided PETA type folks think.

Well I don't think these facts are misguided. They are quite disturbing if you ask me.
Mature females only produce cubs every second or third year and the estimated grizz pop on the eastern slopes is said to be somewhere between 500 and 1000 bears.
According to these stats we're losing 100 bears every five years through human interference. Our population and use of the back country is growing steadily and will excelerate these numbers.

Grizzlies need large home ranges in order to survive and bit by bit we're shrinking their territory. I don't agree with shutting down our recreational areas but something has to be done. They have to find a happy median between grizzlies and humans.

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by Tuc

Grizzlies need large home ranges in order to survive and bit by bit we're shrinking their territory. I don't agree with shutting down our recreational areas but something has to be done. They have to find a happy median between grizzlies and humans.

I could agree with that Tuc. I guess what winds me up is the 'extremist' stances that are taken sometimes (either for or against). Should have had my coffee first before ranting this morning because I kind of sound like a bit of an ignorant redneck in that post eh?

The happy median is often the hardest to achieve I suppose.

[denpacc]

Originally Posted by Tuc

Well I don't think these facts are misguided. They are quite disturbing if you ask me.
Mature females only produce cubs every second or third year and the estimated grizz pop on the eastern slopes is said to be somewhere between 500 and 1000 bears.
According to these stats we're losing 100 bears every five years through human interference. Our population and use of the back country is growing steadily and will excelerate these numbers.

Grizzlies need large home ranges in order to survive and bit by bit we're shrinking their territory. I don't agree with shutting down our recreational areas but something has to be done. They have to find a happy median between grizzlies and humans.

Good posting Tuc, couldn't have said it better myself.

Cheers

[rhino]

The problem with grizzlies is that they go where they want to. The Bergen Bear traveled over thirty kilometers after her encounter, with her cubs, before wildlife officers caught up to her. The majority of the bears in my experience are living in the green zone between the trunk road and private land, where the bio's don't look. They travel out into private land following rivers and steams where cover and food is available. A senior wildlife officer told me that he thought they had delt with over twenty grizzlies in an area between Bragg Creek and Sundre in the last year. At the public forum on the Bergen Bear I believe the biologist said that there was only 44 gizz's between highway 16 and highway 1, if this is true then half of the bears got into trouble in the last year. Something to think about.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

I could agree with that Tuc. I guess what winds me up is the 'extremist' stances that are taken sometimes (either for or against). Should have had my coffee first before ranting this morning because I kind of sound like a bit of an ignorant redneck in that post eh?

The happy median is often the hardest to achieve I suppose.

Glad you said that so I don't have to.

I believe there is a BIG difference between "conservationists" and "grizzly Activists" or "peta type folks".

Conservationists are concerned with the plight of grizzly bears. I reckon I am one as it does concern me. Concervation means "the wise use of..."

I do agree with your comment on "extremists" on both sides of the issue. That is a major problem we have in trying to solve most issues. And it sure is evident on the disscussions on this board.

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Conservationists are concerned with the plight of grizzly bears. I reckon I am one as it does concern me. Concervation means "the wise use of..."

That's a huge part of being a hunter/outdoorsman whatever you want to call it. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned too. I would never hunt a grizz, because I prefer just meat hunting for ungulates. But I don't have a problem with guys that do.

Originally Posted by rhino

The majority of the bears in my experience are living in the green zone between the trunk road and private land, where the bio's don't look. They travel out into private land following rivers and steams where cover and food is available.

That's what I was getting at in my earlier comment. The studies focus on certain areas and dismiss others. The DNA testing is done in wierd ways and therefore the numbers can't be accurate in my opinion. That doesn't mean that these bears are experiancing pressure that they've never experianced before, and the facts are that a number are being killed for the reasons shown in the article. That has to have an impact, but how can you measure that impact when you don't really know for sure how many are really out there.

I must run into the same three bears every summer, because I've seen lots first-hand in K-country and west of Okotoks.


There seems to me so many flawed theories on both side of the fence, how does a guy trim the fat and find the facts to make a 'wise' decision? Probably boils down to not enough money to study the issue properly, and too many people with agendas involved in these studies to make the reccomendations accurate.

[rhino]

I took a grizz in the early 80's in sothern alberta. I believe the stats were there was 2200 applications for 50 available tags south of the Bow River to the U.S. border. During this hunt there were three bears harvested. It would be interesting to know how many bears wildlife had to deal with when these seasons existed. There may bee less bears killed if seasons are opened with a a quota.

[209x50]

I look at those numbers and I see 6 bear - the self defence deaths that might have been saved by banning people from the bush. The rest are going to happen no matter what we do as the bears ranges are huge, and they are going to run over or killed as pests or shot by indians and poachers. I don't see the value is keeping people out of the bush. JMO

[mountain]

One opinion I have on this topic is that a moderate number of draws let out is healthy for the Grizzly population . My reasoning is that when a successful draw applicant goes hunting , he / she intends on hunting an adult boar . It is these animals which kill and eat a substantial number of the cubs in a year in order to induce another heat cycle for the sow . Less boars equals a lower mortality . Am I wrong ?

[rhino]

I wanted to revise my math from my first posting. If there are 44 grizzlies living in the stretch from Rocky to Banff and F.W. delt with 20 between Sundre and Bragg then you would think that every bear got into trouble in this area.That is if half the bears live north of Sundre and half live south.

[Dark Wing]

Hmm, a bigger grizzly population is only going to equal a bigger mortality rate. These numbers are only going to increase on a yearly basis. The grizzly bear activists will have the ammo they need to permantly shut down the hunt, mean while more and more bear confrentations will occur.

[Jamie]

Taking away hunting was just the thin edge of the wedge.

Attack the most vulnerable part, then just keep punching.

First it was the hunters, Then those NASTY quad guys, Then it will be the horseback guys, then onto the hikers.

We need to keep hunters in the loop on this. Even if it is just one or 2 tags/ year. We must keep our place at the table.

Jamie

[GMac]

x2

[rhino]

One more interesting tid bit is that I asked the wildlife officer if when they deal with a problem bear if they send a dna sample to the gov. bio to reference or add to thier data base. His reply was no.

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Grizzly Activists Want to Limit Access to Habitat Areas - Blaming Humans for deaths of the 'endangered' Grizzly ( QUTOE )

Maybe the real question that should be asked maybe we should Limit the Activists from the public . I'm honestly sick in tired of hearing these "" ACTIVISTS "" maybe they'll go break into another Secure political meeting , or tie them selves to another set of tracks and well you know what happened in both those , the guys from Green peace got arrested , now facing major charges , and well the guy who tied him self to the tracks I do recall got transformed into a length of track . I cant stand these mouthy whiny Activists , I got nothing good to say to them or about them , kinda like a case of hemorrhoids a pain in the #$$ ....

[Canuck44]

Originally Posted by mountain

One opinion I have on this topic is that a moderate number of draws let out is healthy for the Grizzly population . My reasoning is that when a successful draw applicant goes hunting , he / she intends on hunting an adult boar . It is these animals which kill and eat a substantial number of the cubs in a year in order to induce another heat cycle for the sow . Less boars equals a lower mortality . Am I wrong ?

thats what i keep telling my wife, you nailed it on the head

[59whiskers]

I am not convinced that the grizzly population is on the decline. There have been numerous sightings of grizzlies in areas of this province where they have not been seen for 80 years until now. They have been seen in the Porcupine Hills and last year the Milk River Ridge. Are there any studies being under taken in areas on private lands? I have documented all of my game sightings on hunting trips for 25 years in the mountains on public land. I used to see more black bears and rarely any grizzlies 25 years ago. For the last 15 years I have seen more grizzlies and less black bears up to now. I find the grizzlies to be bolder and not very fearfull of hunters. If anything is on the decline it is the habitats in our foothills regions that have grizzlies on private lands, it seems like there is a mansion every half mile down the road on lands west of Calgary and Pincher Creek.

[bullwinkle]

What I find interesting is that several of these activists live in the Bow valley (Banff/Canmore) where the majority of grizz habitat has been destroyed by housing developments.I haven't yet heard one of them offer up they're Canmore 'retreat' in the name of conservation.

Originally Posted by 59whiskers

I am not convinced that the grizzly population is on the decline. There have been numerous sightings of grizzlies in areas of this province where they have not been seen for 80 years until now. They have been seen in the Porcupine Hills and last year the Milk River Ridge. Are there any studies being under taken in areas on private lands? I have documented all of my game sightings on hunting trips for 25 years in the mountains on public land. I used to see more black bears and rarely any grizzlies 25 years ago. For the last 15 years I have seen more grizzlies and less black bears up to now. I find the grizzlies to be bolder and not very fearfull of hunters. If anything is on the decline it is the habitats in our foothills regions that have grizzlies on private lands, it seems like there is a mansion every half mile down the road on lands west of Calgary and Pincher Creek.

[Anzacron]

"If anything is on the decline it is the habitats in our foothills regions that have grizzlies on private lands, it seems like there is a mansion every half mile down the road on lands west of Calgary and Pincher Creek"


You sir have nailed it, this is the problem!

[gunsnreels]

eol

[Dark Wing]

[QUOTE=

Conservationists are calling on the government to tighten access to bear habitats by trail bikes, ATVs and four-wheel drive vehicles.



One more stupid excuse to try to limit access to land that we all have a right to enjoy.

[/QUOTE]

With that attitude maybe we should restrict access to ski hills and golf courses in grizzly habitat. I'm sure that would go over well with our Urban bear conservationists.