kan du inte rösta borgerligt. Ord och inga visor från Maud.
Den som är emot att äta kött eller specialengagerad i biologisk mångfald vänder sig däremot inte till Centern, tror Maud Olofsson. Och den som är emot vargjakt har inget att hämta.
– Vi tycker man ska ha vargjakt, det tycker alla borgerliga partier. Vill du inte ha det kan du inte rösta borgerligt, säger Maud Olofsson.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/politik/valet2010/c-slapper-fra-kritiken_5156305.svd
lördag 21 augusti 2010
Fish and Game fights judge’s wolf ruling
Fish and Game fights judge’s wolf ruling: Agency says it doesn’t want to pay for poaching enforcement
By Nick Coltrain Times-News writer | Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:15 am
While the Idaho Department of Fish and Game doesn’t want people to poach or illegally kill wolves in Idaho, it doesn’t want to pay to enforce those rules either, its spokesman said.
“We definitely feel with the current state of the status of the wolves, the federal government has an obligation to pay,” spokesman Ed Mitchell said, emphasizing that the department won’t turn a blind eye to illegal wolf killings either. “(Funding is) going to have to come from somewhere and the (Fish and Game Commission) determined that as long as we don’t have a funding source, i.e. tag sales, the funding should come from the federal government.”
That’s just part of the latest salvo since a federal judge returned gray wolves to the endangered species list at the beginning of the month. On Monday, the Fish and Game Commission passed a resolution pledging its support for overturning U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy both in the courts and in Congress, and laid out its objections to his decision: it’s “contrary to State management of wildlife, the intent and purpose of the Endangered Species Act and the clear biological recovery of wolves.”
Commissioners also called for Idaho to take point in managing wolves in the state.
Wolves were reintroduced in the Rocky Mountain region in 1995 with the goal of maintaining at least 300 wolves. By the end of 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated there were about 1,700 wolves in the region, with Idaho home to 843. Despite that showing of recovery, Molloy ruled that because the wolves were never taken off the endangered species list in Wyoming — and because animals ignore political boundaries — they needed to be relisted in Idaho and Montana.
The wolf was delisted in Idaho and Montana in 2009 after the two states submitted acceptable wolf management plans to the federal wildlife agency. Both states held hunts in the fall.
In written comments presented Monday to its Idaho counterpart, Fish and Wildlife stated the odds of holding a wolf hunt this fall are “unlikely” and that it will likely take 18 months to two years for the next delisting attempt to be completed. The federal agency does not plan to attempt to change a policy regarding segments of a population in order to divide wolves along state boundaries, according to the comments.
Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Joan Jewett said Tuesday that the department is still deciding whether it will appeal Molloy’s ruling. She said her department is also working on how it will balance protection with the state.
“We certainly understand the state’s desire for assistance and we’ll help in any way we can,” she said.
She said she expects a memorandum of understanding on enforcing laws against killing wolves to be done within a week.
Nick Coltrain may be reached at ncoltrain@magicvalley.com or 735-3220.
By Nick Coltrain Times-News writer | Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:15 am
While the Idaho Department of Fish and Game doesn’t want people to poach or illegally kill wolves in Idaho, it doesn’t want to pay to enforce those rules either, its spokesman said.
“We definitely feel with the current state of the status of the wolves, the federal government has an obligation to pay,” spokesman Ed Mitchell said, emphasizing that the department won’t turn a blind eye to illegal wolf killings either. “(Funding is) going to have to come from somewhere and the (Fish and Game Commission) determined that as long as we don’t have a funding source, i.e. tag sales, the funding should come from the federal government.”
That’s just part of the latest salvo since a federal judge returned gray wolves to the endangered species list at the beginning of the month. On Monday, the Fish and Game Commission passed a resolution pledging its support for overturning U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy both in the courts and in Congress, and laid out its objections to his decision: it’s “contrary to State management of wildlife, the intent and purpose of the Endangered Species Act and the clear biological recovery of wolves.”
Commissioners also called for Idaho to take point in managing wolves in the state.
Wolves were reintroduced in the Rocky Mountain region in 1995 with the goal of maintaining at least 300 wolves. By the end of 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated there were about 1,700 wolves in the region, with Idaho home to 843. Despite that showing of recovery, Molloy ruled that because the wolves were never taken off the endangered species list in Wyoming — and because animals ignore political boundaries — they needed to be relisted in Idaho and Montana.
The wolf was delisted in Idaho and Montana in 2009 after the two states submitted acceptable wolf management plans to the federal wildlife agency. Both states held hunts in the fall.
In written comments presented Monday to its Idaho counterpart, Fish and Wildlife stated the odds of holding a wolf hunt this fall are “unlikely” and that it will likely take 18 months to two years for the next delisting attempt to be completed. The federal agency does not plan to attempt to change a policy regarding segments of a population in order to divide wolves along state boundaries, according to the comments.
Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Joan Jewett said Tuesday that the department is still deciding whether it will appeal Molloy’s ruling. She said her department is also working on how it will balance protection with the state.
“We certainly understand the state’s desire for assistance and we’ll help in any way we can,” she said.
She said she expects a memorandum of understanding on enforcing laws against killing wolves to be done within a week.
Nick Coltrain may be reached at ncoltrain@magicvalley.com or 735-3220.
Lodjur lider av dålig inventering
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=93&artikel=3928651
Idag vet ingen med säkerhet hur många lodjur det finns i landet eftersom det finns brister i lodjursinventeringen som respektive länsstyrelse genomför, något som Olof Liberg viltforskare på Grimsö viltforskningsstation är kritisk till.
Tolv nya lodjur i länet
FLER LJUDKLIPP
Olof Liberg: ”Tillförlitligheten är inte så stor som den borde”Olof Liberg: ”Tillförlitligheten är inte så stor som den borde” (1:30)
Idag vet ingen med säkerhet hur många lodjur det finns i landet eftersom det finns brister i lodjursinventeringen som respektive länsstyrelse genomför, något som Olof Liberg viltforskare på Grimsö viltforskningsstation är kritisk till. Reporter Lennart Nordenstein.
Olof Liberg menar att brister i sammanställningen av länsstyrelsernas inventeringar kan leda till att statistiken blir missvisande. Om siffrorna från inventeringen inte stämmer kan lodjuren bli lidande.
– Det här är ju underlaget för Naturvårdsverket när de sätter kvoterna för lojakten och det påverkar ju jaktkvoterna, säger Olof Liberg.
Idag vet ingen med säkerhet hur många lodjur det finns i landet eftersom det finns brister i lodjursinventeringen som respektive länsstyrelse genomför, något som Olof Liberg viltforskare på Grimsö viltforskningsstation är kritisk till.
Tolv nya lodjur i länet
FLER LJUDKLIPP
Olof Liberg: ”Tillförlitligheten är inte så stor som den borde”Olof Liberg: ”Tillförlitligheten är inte så stor som den borde” (1:30)
Idag vet ingen med säkerhet hur många lodjur det finns i landet eftersom det finns brister i lodjursinventeringen som respektive länsstyrelse genomför, något som Olof Liberg viltforskare på Grimsö viltforskningsstation är kritisk till. Reporter Lennart Nordenstein.
Olof Liberg menar att brister i sammanställningen av länsstyrelsernas inventeringar kan leda till att statistiken blir missvisande. Om siffrorna från inventeringen inte stämmer kan lodjuren bli lidande.
– Det här är ju underlaget för Naturvårdsverket när de sätter kvoterna för lojakten och det påverkar ju jaktkvoterna, säger Olof Liberg.
fredag 6 augusti 2010
Vargen tillbaka på "Endengered Species List"
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_7d1e72ce-a0dd-11df-9f6b-001cc4c03286.html
Molloy orders reinstatement of gray wolf protections in Montana, Idaho
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian | Posted: Thursday, August 5, 2010 10:00 pm
KALISPELL - Wolves are back on the endangered species list, after U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled Thursday that populations in Montana and Idaho cannot be considered separately from Wyoming's wolves.
In a 50-page decision, Molloy said "the rule delisting the gray wolf (in Montana and Idaho) must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one."
With the relisting, this fall's planned wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho are now on hold, at least until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can assure an adequate protection plan in Wyoming.
"The ruling not only strikes down the delisting decision," said Kieran Suckling, executive director at the Center for Biological Diversity, "it invalidates the Bush-era Interior solicitor's memo justifying the concept of listing/delisting species and populations in only a portion of their range."
Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game declined to comment immediately after the ruling was released, saying they had yet to read the whole decision.
"If we understand the ruling correctly, Judge Molloy is telling the federal government that because Wyoming still doesn't have adequate regulatory mechanisms to manage wolves, you can't delist the wolf in Montana and Idaho." said Joe Maurier, director of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "We simply can't manage wildlife successfully in that environment. We must have the ability to manage wildlife, to do our job, to seek a balance among predator and prey. As a practical matter, as wildlife managers, we need the authority to respond to the challenges wolves present every day."
***
Historically, wolves were exterminated from the region by the 1930s. In 1974, they were given Endangered Species Act protections.
A decade later, in 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a wolf recovery plan, calling for at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves for three consecutive years in each of three recovery areas - northwest Montana, central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone area.
Then, in 1994, the agency set aside portions of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming for wolf reintroduction, considering those transplants part of a "nonessential experimental population."
That same year, the agency released an environmental review concluding that the initial goal - 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in the three recovery areas - was likely a bare minimum. Instead, it now advised true species recovery would require at least 30 breeding pairs and some 300 wolves in a "metapopulation," with genetic exchange between subpopulations.
By 2007, the species had met that threshold for eight consecutive years, and on Feb. 27, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a rule delisting the wolves.
Conservationists sued to stop that move, however, and the court agreed the agency had not established proof of genetic exchange between wolf populations. In addition, the court ruled that while Montana and Idaho had established suitable wolf management plans, Wyoming had not.
The agency went back to the drawing board, and on April 2, 2009, again acted to remove the species from ESA protections.
New evidence, agency biologists said, now proved the missing genetic exchange. And as for Wyoming's failed management plan, the agency simply carved that state out of the plan - delisting in Montana and Idaho, but not Wyoming.
Idaho and Montana immediately authorized public wolf hunts.
Conservationists again cried foul, arguing, among other things, that a biological population could not be parsed on state-line or political boundaries.
***
On Thursday, Molloy agreed with that argument.
Specifically, Molloy ruled that the Endangered Species Act does not allow only part of a species to be listed as endangered, nor does it allow a distinct population segment to be subdivided.
By separating Wyoming's wolves from Montana's and Idaho's, he said, the agency had violated the law.
"It is illegal because it is a political determination, not a biological one," Suckling said. "The biological population must be taken as a whole, not broken down into politically determined parts in order to justify delisting."
Suckling called the decision "a victory for all wildlife, not just the wolf, because it forces the federal government to treat species as a whole, not divide them into politically convenient pieces so it can strip them of protection."
While Molloy's decision was based on the parsing of the population, he did not rule on an accompanying complaint that the species is not, in fact, recovered.
Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Montana has done everything it's been asked to do in developing a state management program, but now will have to apply federal law and regulations once more.
"This puts a spotlight on Wyoming and seeing what can be done with Wyoming," Sime said.
Molloy's decision means ranchers in northwestern Montana will no longer be able to haze, harass or kill wolves that prey on their livestock, Sime said.
Wolves in southwestern Montana will revert to their "experimental population" status and ranchers there will still be able to kill wolves that attack their animals, she said.
But a big blow is the loss of a hunting season, Sime said.
"That's clearly a management tool that we want to have in the toolbox. We think it's legitimate and appropriate," she said.
Both Idaho and Montana held wolf hunts last year. Montana's kill ended with 73 wolves and Idaho's with 185.
At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@missoulian.com.
Molloy orders reinstatement of gray wolf protections in Montana, Idaho
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian | Posted: Thursday, August 5, 2010 10:00 pm
KALISPELL - Wolves are back on the endangered species list, after U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled Thursday that populations in Montana and Idaho cannot be considered separately from Wyoming's wolves.
In a 50-page decision, Molloy said "the rule delisting the gray wolf (in Montana and Idaho) must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one."
With the relisting, this fall's planned wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho are now on hold, at least until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can assure an adequate protection plan in Wyoming.
"The ruling not only strikes down the delisting decision," said Kieran Suckling, executive director at the Center for Biological Diversity, "it invalidates the Bush-era Interior solicitor's memo justifying the concept of listing/delisting species and populations in only a portion of their range."
Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game declined to comment immediately after the ruling was released, saying they had yet to read the whole decision.
"If we understand the ruling correctly, Judge Molloy is telling the federal government that because Wyoming still doesn't have adequate regulatory mechanisms to manage wolves, you can't delist the wolf in Montana and Idaho." said Joe Maurier, director of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "We simply can't manage wildlife successfully in that environment. We must have the ability to manage wildlife, to do our job, to seek a balance among predator and prey. As a practical matter, as wildlife managers, we need the authority to respond to the challenges wolves present every day."
***
Historically, wolves were exterminated from the region by the 1930s. In 1974, they were given Endangered Species Act protections.
A decade later, in 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a wolf recovery plan, calling for at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves for three consecutive years in each of three recovery areas - northwest Montana, central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone area.
Then, in 1994, the agency set aside portions of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming for wolf reintroduction, considering those transplants part of a "nonessential experimental population."
That same year, the agency released an environmental review concluding that the initial goal - 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in the three recovery areas - was likely a bare minimum. Instead, it now advised true species recovery would require at least 30 breeding pairs and some 300 wolves in a "metapopulation," with genetic exchange between subpopulations.
By 2007, the species had met that threshold for eight consecutive years, and on Feb. 27, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a rule delisting the wolves.
Conservationists sued to stop that move, however, and the court agreed the agency had not established proof of genetic exchange between wolf populations. In addition, the court ruled that while Montana and Idaho had established suitable wolf management plans, Wyoming had not.
The agency went back to the drawing board, and on April 2, 2009, again acted to remove the species from ESA protections.
New evidence, agency biologists said, now proved the missing genetic exchange. And as for Wyoming's failed management plan, the agency simply carved that state out of the plan - delisting in Montana and Idaho, but not Wyoming.
Idaho and Montana immediately authorized public wolf hunts.
Conservationists again cried foul, arguing, among other things, that a biological population could not be parsed on state-line or political boundaries.
***
On Thursday, Molloy agreed with that argument.
Specifically, Molloy ruled that the Endangered Species Act does not allow only part of a species to be listed as endangered, nor does it allow a distinct population segment to be subdivided.
By separating Wyoming's wolves from Montana's and Idaho's, he said, the agency had violated the law.
"It is illegal because it is a political determination, not a biological one," Suckling said. "The biological population must be taken as a whole, not broken down into politically determined parts in order to justify delisting."
Suckling called the decision "a victory for all wildlife, not just the wolf, because it forces the federal government to treat species as a whole, not divide them into politically convenient pieces so it can strip them of protection."
While Molloy's decision was based on the parsing of the population, he did not rule on an accompanying complaint that the species is not, in fact, recovered.
Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Montana has done everything it's been asked to do in developing a state management program, but now will have to apply federal law and regulations once more.
"This puts a spotlight on Wyoming and seeing what can be done with Wyoming," Sime said.
Molloy's decision means ranchers in northwestern Montana will no longer be able to haze, harass or kill wolves that prey on their livestock, Sime said.
Wolves in southwestern Montana will revert to their "experimental population" status and ranchers there will still be able to kill wolves that attack their animals, she said.
But a big blow is the loss of a hunting season, Sime said.
"That's clearly a management tool that we want to have in the toolbox. We think it's legitimate and appropriate," she said.
Both Idaho and Montana held wolf hunts last year. Montana's kill ended with 73 wolves and Idaho's with 185.
At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@missoulian.com.
onsdag 4 augusti 2010
Kan svenska forskare något om habituering?
http://www.forskning.se/temaninteraktivt/teman/rovdjur/tiofragorsvar/tiofragorochsvar/arrovdjurfarligaformanniskor.5.7cdc43ec129352b02448000287.html
Har sett det förr men det verkar som om vissa amerikanska forskare är av annan uppfattning
De menar att rätt utförd kan matning av t.ex. björn minska konflikterna rovdjur-
människor
http://news.discovery.com/animals/feeding-wild-bears.html
Should We Feed Wild Bears?
Wildlife advocates are using a radical, illegal, but apparently effective strategy to stop confrontations between humans and black bears: They're feeding the bears.
THE GIST
Bear advocates and biologists show that "diversionary feeding" can stop human-bear conflicts.
Done correctly, such feeding keeps bears wild and away of human zones.
The feeding could especially work in the autumn where there isn't enough food in the forest.
enlargeSome wildlife advocates say leaving food for bears in the woods can stop unwanted confrontations. Click to enlarge this image.
iStockPhoto
RELATED CONTENT
Food puzzles and sensory training are just a couple of the ways the Smithsonian's National Zoo enriches the lives of its animals.
Presenting...The Grizzly Bear
Grizzly Bears Enter Polar Bear Territory
RELATED TOPICS
Animals
Bears
Black Bears
Some biologists and bear advocates are trying a truly radical, sometimes illegal, but apparently effective strategy to stop confrontations between humans and black bears: They are feeding the bears.
The tactic flies in the face of decades of lore that says feeding bears conditions them to seek food only from humans and makes them fearlessly "habituated" to human presence, and so more dangerous. Yet in the handful of cases where bears are fed properly, there are far fewer bear problems.
"Conditioning and habituation does not create nuisance bears," said Montana bear biologist Lynn Rogers of the Wildlife Research Institute in Minnesota. "Hunger does."
All home break-ins, tent raids and many other bear incidents are by bears who are suffering from forests damaged by fires, drought or other factors that have reduced their food supply, said Rogers. This intensifies when bears enter their "hyperphagic," heavy eating stage in the fall, before hibernation.
"It's food that they are after," explains U.S. Geological Survey biologist Chuck Schwartz, who is the leader of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. He said the same applies to all bears, from grizzlies to black bears.
"These bears are in this state when they need this food to make it through the winter."
So why not scatter leftover orchard fruit in the woods for bears to forage on? Well for one thing, such "diversionary feeding" can be against the law. That was the case at Lake Tahoe, Calif., where the Bear League tried it a few years ago and claim they saw an immediate halt to bear break-ins.
"We had a drought, several forest fires and 20 bears a night were going into homes," said Ann Bryant of the Bear League.
The forest hadn't enough food. Some argued that nature should take its course and the bears should die of starvation. The problem was, the bears didn't get that memo and started raiding homes, which means bears were facing off with people. When that happens, bears are generally the losers.
Two days after the unauthorized diversionary feeding started, said Bryant, the break-ins stopped in those areas. Where activists could not sneak the fruit past authorities, the break-ins continued, she said.
The strategy worked not only in Tahoe, but in a study he conducted in Minnesota as well, Rogers said. But the idea hasn't gained much traction due to centuries of hardcore anti-bear fear.
Contrary to popular images, bears are timid and prefer to eat in the woods, said Rogers. That's why the troubles almost always happen in the autumns of lean years.
As for the recent bear incident in Yellowstone National Park, it does not fit the pattern, said Schwartz, because it is too early in the year and there is plenty of forage in the woods.
"The only thing I can say is how rare it is," ventured Rogers.
Bears are intelligent animals capable of a range of behaviors. Most would never attack a human, he said. But in any population there are individuals who behave abnormally. Still, he added, only one in 50,000 grizzly bears might kill a human and one in a million black bears might do the same.
"The biggest problem the bears face is excessive fear," said Rogers. That fear is backed up by everyone from the National Park Service to taxidermists who have universally posed bears with an angry snarl on their faces.
Another factor that has exacerbated bear-human troubles in recent years is the building of more homes in the woods, said Schwartz.
"We have people moving closer to bear habitat," said Schwartz. That could account for a slight increase in bear-human confrontations over the years.
3 Comments | Post a Comment Print Email Facebook Twitter Digg Yahoo! Buzz Friend's Name:
Email:
Your Name:
Email:
Message:
submit reset close
Har sett det förr men det verkar som om vissa amerikanska forskare är av annan uppfattning
De menar att rätt utförd kan matning av t.ex. björn minska konflikterna rovdjur-
människor
http://news.discovery.com/animals/feeding-wild-bears.html
Should We Feed Wild Bears?
Wildlife advocates are using a radical, illegal, but apparently effective strategy to stop confrontations between humans and black bears: They're feeding the bears.
THE GIST
Bear advocates and biologists show that "diversionary feeding" can stop human-bear conflicts.
Done correctly, such feeding keeps bears wild and away of human zones.
The feeding could especially work in the autumn where there isn't enough food in the forest.
enlargeSome wildlife advocates say leaving food for bears in the woods can stop unwanted confrontations. Click to enlarge this image.
iStockPhoto
RELATED CONTENT
Food puzzles and sensory training are just a couple of the ways the Smithsonian's National Zoo enriches the lives of its animals.
Presenting...The Grizzly Bear
Grizzly Bears Enter Polar Bear Territory
RELATED TOPICS
Animals
Bears
Black Bears
Some biologists and bear advocates are trying a truly radical, sometimes illegal, but apparently effective strategy to stop confrontations between humans and black bears: They are feeding the bears.
The tactic flies in the face of decades of lore that says feeding bears conditions them to seek food only from humans and makes them fearlessly "habituated" to human presence, and so more dangerous. Yet in the handful of cases where bears are fed properly, there are far fewer bear problems.
"Conditioning and habituation does not create nuisance bears," said Montana bear biologist Lynn Rogers of the Wildlife Research Institute in Minnesota. "Hunger does."
All home break-ins, tent raids and many other bear incidents are by bears who are suffering from forests damaged by fires, drought or other factors that have reduced their food supply, said Rogers. This intensifies when bears enter their "hyperphagic," heavy eating stage in the fall, before hibernation.
"It's food that they are after," explains U.S. Geological Survey biologist Chuck Schwartz, who is the leader of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. He said the same applies to all bears, from grizzlies to black bears.
"These bears are in this state when they need this food to make it through the winter."
So why not scatter leftover orchard fruit in the woods for bears to forage on? Well for one thing, such "diversionary feeding" can be against the law. That was the case at Lake Tahoe, Calif., where the Bear League tried it a few years ago and claim they saw an immediate halt to bear break-ins.
"We had a drought, several forest fires and 20 bears a night were going into homes," said Ann Bryant of the Bear League.
The forest hadn't enough food. Some argued that nature should take its course and the bears should die of starvation. The problem was, the bears didn't get that memo and started raiding homes, which means bears were facing off with people. When that happens, bears are generally the losers.
Two days after the unauthorized diversionary feeding started, said Bryant, the break-ins stopped in those areas. Where activists could not sneak the fruit past authorities, the break-ins continued, she said.
The strategy worked not only in Tahoe, but in a study he conducted in Minnesota as well, Rogers said. But the idea hasn't gained much traction due to centuries of hardcore anti-bear fear.
Contrary to popular images, bears are timid and prefer to eat in the woods, said Rogers. That's why the troubles almost always happen in the autumns of lean years.
As for the recent bear incident in Yellowstone National Park, it does not fit the pattern, said Schwartz, because it is too early in the year and there is plenty of forage in the woods.
"The only thing I can say is how rare it is," ventured Rogers.
Bears are intelligent animals capable of a range of behaviors. Most would never attack a human, he said. But in any population there are individuals who behave abnormally. Still, he added, only one in 50,000 grizzly bears might kill a human and one in a million black bears might do the same.
"The biggest problem the bears face is excessive fear," said Rogers. That fear is backed up by everyone from the National Park Service to taxidermists who have universally posed bears with an angry snarl on their faces.
Another factor that has exacerbated bear-human troubles in recent years is the building of more homes in the woods, said Schwartz.
"We have people moving closer to bear habitat," said Schwartz. That could account for a slight increase in bear-human confrontations over the years.
3 Comments | Post a Comment Print Email Facebook Twitter Digg Yahoo! Buzz Friend's Name:
Email:
Your Name:
Email:
Message:
submit reset close
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)