It's been a busy month for me. Between the job and my Masters I hardly had time for thinking about wildlife. However recently I became aware of a new campaign that attempts to bring back the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) back to California. For those not aware, the grizzly bear is part of the Californian state flag and features in a lot of paraphernalia regarding California. However the actual species has been extinct since 1922/1924. This was mostly due to gold fever and the human settlement in California. Human presence meant that grizzles were rapidly hunted and persecuted.
Now a new movement seeks to reintroduced the grizzly back to California, thus restoring some native pride and increasing the biodiversity. I have to admit that I don't think it's a good idea just yet.
First things first, the habitat proposed is in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Whilst there is ample habitat there, it neighbors the Central Valley which is inhabited and also is the main agricultural center of California. Conflict is bound to occur sooner than later since bears are wanderers. Bears wander around to mate but also to find food. Not only that they maintain large territories that could include ranches and farms. This means high tensions from the start which is not how you want to start a reintroduction. Campers and hikers may not mind the presence of grizzly bears so much however people's whose property borders the potential habitat will likely come into conflict with these bears. Although grizzlies tend to have relatively low depredation rates, bears also tend to utilize trash cans more frequently than other predators. Therefore it is more likely to see grizzlies entering private property more often. Not to mention the fact that bears are omnivores, therefore certain farms that grow fruit may act as attractants for the bears.
So let's put the human/wildlife conflict and focus on simple ecological facts. Although the Sierra Nevada is suitable habitat, the grizzlies will have almost nowhere to disperse from there. Some of them may find themselves in Northern California where there is more suitable habitat but everywhere else is just fragmented habitats. One of the largest conservation challenges faced is habitat fragmentation and introducing a species to a fragmented habitat goes pretty much against the IUCN reintroduction guidelines. Not only that but deer population is decreasing in California and with the drought, resources will be limited for a reintroduction as well as for the initial population to thrive.
There are however certain pros that come out of it. First things first, it's a case of practice what you preach One of the issues that developing nations seems to have with western countries asking them to conserve areas/species, is that it's easy for those countries to preach since they don't tend to have much to conserve or have already exploited all their national resources for progress. Reintroducing grizzly bears will show that California and to an extent the U.S.A value their native wildlife and will aim to conserve it. In addition to that it will show other nations that the U.S is willing to conserve larger species that create conflict, a criticism that always comes from nations that have to deal with predator conservation.
Furthermore the presence of grizzlies will bring in more tourism as wildlife tends to attract more tourist. Increased tourism will mean increased capital which means that more habitats may be conserved if the government and the general public see some value in nature.
Overall however, reintroducing the grizzly should be something that's far away on a Californian's mind. Although it seems good in practice, the complications that could arise from such program would be too much to be worth reintroducing the grizzlies to limited habitat. California despite it's beauty and wilderness is densely populated and quite frankly should focus on saving other endangered species endemic to California. Though the grizzly may return at some point, there are others that need more dire help and soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment