Originally Posted by Raiyn
You've said some things that I really disagree with, but this one takes the cake. "They'll make more" ? What the hell do you think they are mother****ing Doritos? This has to be the single most ignorant thing I've seen you post
The facts of the matter are these:- The Grizzly IS listed on the endangered species list as "Threatened" in the lower 48 states (there is a LARGE population in Alaska) http://endangered.fws.gov/i/A4I.html
- It has been since 1975
- In Canada it's listed as Extirpated except for the Northwestern population (which we are apparently dealing with)
- The cyclist had been given a warning not to enter the area
- It's the bear's home turf.
While I agree that the incident is unfortunate (for both sides) it's man who is ultimately to blame not the bear who were here in far greater numbers than there are currently.
Thank you for the correction as the bear being threatened in the United States. Apparently, there is plenty of them in the territories we're talking about.
What I meant by "they'll make more" is that the loss of one bear means more opportunities for all the other bears. One bear died, that probably means 2-3 more cubs will survive. Nature is a *****. All species overproduce to fill up available resources.
There are some REAL natural tragedies out there. Some species are very fragile by their nature. Some species don't have good reproduction rates, have VERY long gestation periods, and do a poor job of bringing their offspring to maturity. The grizzly bear is NOT one of these species.
Mommas have 1-3 cubs if I recall. The number that survive is dependent on the amount of available resources. One less adult bear simply means more cubs will survive. The species replenishes itself. Like I said, they'll make more bears. And in case you didn't realize it, that bear was going to die someday anyway.
If your being a "naturalist", try to keep "nature" in perspective. The killing of a single animal rarely affects population.