Originally Posted by willtsmith_nwi
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.
First off, regard the earlier post about the situation of Grizzlies in Canada before making the asinine statement about there being
plenty of bears in those regions. Secondly, your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs contradict each other, and really don't make all that much sense towards any argument. Thirdly, species do not simply overfill niches. There are cycles of overpopulation and underpopulation, based on many variable such as prey availability, weather cycles and unfortunately human encroachment. Humans are continually overpopulating, yes, something that sets us apart.
Yes, the killing of a single animal will doubtful affect the entire population. It's just a ****ty situation for both parties involved.