link
Officials of the US national parks refuse to restore federal protections for Yellowstone-area grizzly bears, despite a court ruling that opposed the government's rationale for turning grizzly management over to the states. Officials disagreed with the ruling, because they state that population has already recovered. Bears outside this area (in the other 48 states) will still remain protected.
Conservation groups and Native American tribes have challenged the court ruling, stating that killing grizzly bears diminishes the population of other bears. Conservation groups claim that the bears are occupying less than 5 percent of their historical range. But this may be due to a concentration of the bears in one area and their inability to spread themselves, which is a problem in itself.
I think that there's too much commotion being caused over the area called into question, because the facts (which the article didn't do a very good job of articulating) are that there are currently too many bears. Of course the land should be preserved, but there needs to be a balance maintained between hunting and protecting species to a certain extent, or else the entire ecosystem will be destroyed.
Are the officials justified in their actions? Do you think primary authority over protecting specifically these species (like grizzlies) should be handed over to the states? Finally, how do you think the population of a species can be managed, and do you think hunting is an effective solution to the problem?
3 comments:
I think that even if the bears are currently overpopulating the area, the government should still not allow these animals to be hunted. Allowing any type of hunting, even controlled or limited hunting, can still be lead to over-hunting. This will end up harming the bear population and the ecosystem as a whole. If the bear over-population is becoming an issue now, there are many other ways that their population can be controlled by biologists and specialists in the area that have a much smaller chance of harming the bear population or the surrounding ecosystem.
Even if the bear population have returned and is overpopulating in certain areas, I do not believe that the government should enable any type of killing protocol. Perhaps there is a way to lure some into migrating into areas with less bear population? Even if there isn't, the area's resources are limited, so I believe nature will work things out in its due course.
Like Lydia and Yuki said, I don't think that people should be allowed to hunt grizzly bears. Grizzlytimes.org has said that hunting grizzly bears has "evolutionary consequences that manifest" such as "slowing the pace of reproduction." So, even though the population of the bears has recovered, the impact of hunting these bears will eventually lead to more bears being killed than those being born. Bears are typically hunted for their fur and meat. Personally, I really haven't heard of bear meat being considered one of the more common meats to eat, which makes me think that bears are really hunted by those who look to have them as a trophy to show off their hunting skills. This type of "trophy hunting" seems selfish and unnecessary. Additionally, I think that nature can control the population of the bears without human intervention. The conservation groups and Native American tribes are biased since they are more personally connected to the grizzly bears, but they also must have a level of expertise on these types of issues that larger groups may not have.
Post a Comment