Should California reintroduce Grizzly Bears?

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.

Should we call coywolves a new species?

Lately there has been a lot of media attention towards the coywolf and what it means as a species. For those of you who don't know coywolves are canids which can be found in the East Coast of the U.S.A. They are believed to be part coyote and part wolf(whether it's red, grey or eastern is up to the location) and sometimes with a splice of dog in there. These animals are of a much broader build than coyotes are and often form larger packs like wolves. However they look more like coyotes and tend to thrive even in urban environments like coyotes do.  Coywolves present an interesting challenge to biologists as the scientific community isn't sure whether to call it a new species or remain classified as a hybrid.

The point is does it really matter? Not to the animals that's for sure but to us it should. Animals like prizzlies(grizzly and polar bear mix) and coywolves just started appearing more and more frequently and the media isn't doing them any favours. They are often described as "ultra predators","a new breed of predator"and other sort of sensational words used to stir up the audience. This is the problem right here. While science is trying to understand whether these animals are unique or have shown up in the past before, the media is scaring people. Instead of leading a debate as to whether human activities have caused these hybrids or whether these hybrids were meant to appear naturally, the media and certain scientists are all about classifying them.

While this may be important for legislation and conservation, I feel that humans are missing the bigger picture. Those of us with some knowledge in evolution will know that favourable traits are selected for. So is it completely strange that these coywolves are just coyotes which are selecting favourable traits from hybrid ancestors? Is it too hard to believe that red and silka deer breed to form a more agile deer that is also stronger?

I suppose the reason why the people are challenged with the idea of superior "hybrids"is the fact that this is an instance of viewing survival of the fittest with our own eyes. Human activities have cause a much more disturbed environment and thus animals have been forced to adapt faster or die out. Pizzles can hunt in a longer range and can eat berries as well as meat. Some pizzles get the best of both grizzles and polar bears. The same goes with the coywolves. Of course some others will get the worse traits and die out. But the idea that these animals are evolving and adapting right before our eyes is newfound and indeed has caused some to label these animals as new species instead of acknowledging that these could be the very species they knew 20-30 years ago and that they are now adapting to a different world.\

And it's a scary thought to acknowledge because we have all been taught that evolution is a process that spans over hundreds, thousands and millions of years but instead is now happening in front of our eyes. Polar bears are losing range, the ice caps are melting, the Northern regions are getting warmer. All of these are factors as to why grizzlis started heading north and polar bears south.  How can all these reasons have happened in the past century or so? Well that's the scary answer my friends. It's us. Instead of focusing on why these animals are changing and adapting, we seek to label them as a new breed of mega predators and hold debates as to whether or not they are a new species. Instead of identifying that the reason coyotes breed with wolves in the first place is because we shot wolves to oblivion and thus limited their mating options, we seek to see these animals as a newly found threat caused by unknown reasons.

To conclude my post, these animals probably aren't a new species but rather one that is adapting to become a new species. The reasons why this is happening should be entirely on us and we should understand that and change our own ways.