Coursehero >> Utah >> Southern Utah >> PE 2920

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

McNicoll Professor English 20 10 5 December 2002 The Grizzly Horizon The 16.1 million acre Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem of central Idaho and adjacent western Montana is the largest chunk wilderness habitat in the Rocky Mountains south of Canada (Grizzly). The area used to contain a thriving grizzly bear population. When the famed Lewis and Clark expedition traversed the region in 1806 they saw many grizzlies and killed at least seven (Grizzly). The men of the expedition and, more importantly, the rifles they carried were the beginning of the end for grizzlies, not just in the SelwayBitterroot, but throughout 98 percent of their fonner range in the contiguous United States. The last verified death of a grizzly in the region occurred in 1932; the last tracks were seen in 1946 (Grizzly). In 1975 the grizzly bear was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Fifteen years later, in 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-which agency that is charged with recovering species listed under the ESA-proposed to is the reintroduce grizzlies into the Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem. The proposal was instantly controversial, with the bulk of the opposition coming from local residents, businesses, and government. The debate over grizzly reintroduction centers on two opposing sets of values and perspectives. The opponents of reintroduction proceed from a strongly anthropocentric outlook and an emphasis on short-term effects. Proponents, on the other hand, generally i)lJy assign more value to non-human forms of life and look to the preservation of wilderness and biodiversity as important long-term objectives. It is important to note at the outset that the grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis) is endangered only in the lower 48 states. The worldwide population is large and thriving; more than 200,000 grizzlies are thought to range the upper regions of the northern hemisphere, mostly in Alaska, western Canada, and Siberia (Brown 32-35). Regional grizzly (or brown bear) populations display considerable differences in physical characteristics and behavior, but they are all considered to be members of the same species (Brown 1 1- 15). The pre-1 9Ihcentury population estimate for grizzlies in the lower 48 is between 50,000- 100,000 bears (Hedstrom 40). By 1975 the grizzly's range (as noted above) had been reduced by 98 percent, and there were less than 1,000 bears left in the lower 48 ( U This population crash was the result of a century and half of unrelenting persecution at the hands of homesteaders, prospectors, ranchers, and the hunters of government-sponsored predator control programs and their guns, poisons, and traps. The remaining thousand (or so) bears exist in five distinct, isolated enclaves: the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Yellowstone National Park and adjacent areas), the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (centered on Glacier National Park in Montana), the Selkirk Mountains in extreme northern Idaho, the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem in western Montana, and the North Cascades Ecosystem in north-central Washington . After 1975, these populations were, in theory, protected under the provisions of the ESA. Efforts to stabilize these last grizzly clusters were generally regarded as successful, though the last three groups have so few grizzlies that their survival, even into the immediate future, remains tenuous. The other two grizzly areas-the Continental Divide Ecosystems-have Greater Yellowstone and Northern the bulk of the lower 48's remaining grizzlies, with 400-600 and 400-500 bears respectively (Public). The 1990 FWS grizzly recovery plan proposed, for the first time, the reintroduction of grizzlies into their former range, specifically the Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem (Hedstrom 4), which, according to the FWS, was chosen because of its "high quality bear habitat and low likelihood of human encounters" (Final). The reintroduction element of the 1990 grizzly plan was spurred by a growing consensus among bear biologists that, without reintroduction, the lower 48 grizzly population was likely to suffer extinction. Only a year prior to the release of the 1990 FWS grizzly recovery plan, a study conducted by Montana State University concluded that "The Yellowstone grizzly population is doomed to extinction, though not in our lifetime" (qtd. in Hedstrom 3). The small size and isolation of the remaining grizzly populations, coupled with the continuing erosion of wilderness habitat, is what puts them at risk (Wilson 101). According to renowned bear biologist John Craighead, the unrelenting development of western wildlands is a threat not only to grizzlies but to entire ecosystems: "we're not going to be able to maintain biodiversity," he says, "[alnd one of the first [species] to go would be the grizzly" (qtd. in Hedstrom 4). Charles Jonkel, respected University of Montana bear biologist, has weighed in with a similar warning: "The habitat is declining . .. If we don't turn that curve up, the population has to follow the habitat curve down, and it's inevitable that we're not going to have grizzlies at some point (qtd. in Hedstrom 3). The FWS has concluded that reintroduction of grizzlies into the Selway-Bitterroot is the best way to ensure the perpetuation of the species. In time, they hope, an introduced population would stabilize, expand, and possibly even link with some of the remaining isolated populations, and thereby create, in effect, a single, much more stable population with a much better chance for long-term survival. In November of 2000-after a decade of revisions and maneuverings (which included the creation of a groundbreaking local Citizen Management Committee that was set to manage the grizzly reintroduction)-the FWS announced its intention to proceed with the reintroduction project. But this decision was made during the twilight of the environmentally friendly Clinton administration, and in June of 200 1 George W. Bush's Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, nixed the reintroduction plan, deferring to local political opposition (Jehl A 14). Regardless of Norton's decision, public support for the project apparently remains sky-high. During the most recent public comment period conducted by the FWS (completed in October 2001), which included more than 28,000 responses, nearly 98 percent of respondents disapproved of Secretary Norton's decision (Public 55). Even amongst residents of the two involved state support for reintroduction was high, with 98 /' f percent of comments from Idaho and 93 percent from Montana disagreeing with Secretary Norton's decision (Public 55). Nevertheless, vehement local opposition to reintroduction has always been present. One element of the opposition is concern over the perceived threat the endangered grizzly poses to local land-use industries. Ranchers are concerned about livestock losses at the paws of w---../-worry that lucrative tracts of and members of the logging industry as protected grizzly habitat and on thereby made off-limits (although the ~esource,br~anization Timber Supply-a coalition of timber companies and unions headquartered in Idaho--cooperated with the FWS and environmental groups to create the Citizen Management Committee). The state of Idaho even filed a lawsuit against the federal government over the proposed reintroduction (Jehl A 14). In the case of the grizzly, the opposition to reintroduction takes on another, non-economic dimension. In addition to their financial concerns, many locals are also distressed by the risk the grizzly poses to personal safety. Idaho .-. - 5 b-'eL 1, C b\ "" \( $d W k representative Helen C- ae hg H 0 tn has co@ied the reintroduction plan to bib / b,~ 6 ' "introducing sharks at the beach." Such comments may be a little over-the-top, but they are not entirely without validity; after all, grizzly-caused injuries and deaths, while rare, occur regularly in North America. Before embarking on a discussion of the attitudes and perspectives involved in the \dl I I reintroduction controversy, it might be useful to dismiss the often-applied stereotypes that so often lurk in the background (and sometimes standout in the foreground) of western C environmentalists and tobacco-spitting, trigger-happy rednecks. Rather, we have two groups of people with different values, who understand the world and their place in it in very different terms. Neither is trying to do any harm. Each group believes in the " j land use issues. What we are dealing with here are not so much starry-eyed, tree-hugging 1 , b.& 6 ') \ priority of its values, and each is simply projecting its image of ..-__ _itself ontothe land in ----.-,, __-- question. what economic One of the themes of western land use controversies ~stlie'l~sue-if consequences will result from protecti / development. Opposition to grizzly reintroduction is a classic regional economy. of this, as locals regard the bears as threats to the provides for protection of habitat for endangered species, companies, and their employees, that make a living off of the land (these primarily include members of the timber, mining, and ranching industries) fear that introduced grizzlies will render land off-limits to the often high-impact economic activities they depend on. In response to this concern the FWS decided to designate the introduced grizzlies as a "nonessential experimental population," which would afford the bears only limited protection and would make it easier to remove or kill bears that come into conflict with human interests (Grizzly). A FWS document states: "Reintroduction of a nonessential experimental population of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem is not expected to impact land uses, including timber harvest and mineral extraction activities.. ." (Grizzly). In any event, the concern over grizzlies having a negative economic impact is essentially both a shortsighted and anthropocentric view. This perspective regards the land as valuable only for what it can provide to human beings in the immediate future. It does not reckon with the long-term benefits-both actual and potential--of preserving / wilderness, and it does not seem to consider that wilderness might have value apart from what it can do for man. One example of an actual, measurable benefit provided by wildernesses like the Selway-Bitterroot are "ecosystem services." Author and ecologist Edward 0. Wilson describes ecosystem services as "the flow of materials, energy, and information from the biosphere that support human existence" (1 06). A group of economists and environmental scientists recently estimated the global value of these services at $33 trillion annually (Wilson 105-06). The shortsighted view of reintroduction proponents also ignores the value, both aesthetically and practically, of the grizzly itself. Bears and humans have a long history. / As Anthropologists Paul Shepard and Barry Sanders note in their book The Sacred Paw: "The bear has been an ancient sacred presence since the beginning of European culture.. .. [it] strikes in us a chord of fear and caution, curiosity and fascination" (xiixiii). Commenting on the ability of grizzlies to deepen human self-awareness, and consequently on the importance of saving them, naturalist Doug Peacock notes that "there is nothing new to be learned from animals that are products of our own selecting that would be only another stroll down a museum hallway of mirrors" (274). Stephen 1 i d/ ut)db i I i i / bE.byA 7 td&~' ' 1 Herrero, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary, says of the grizzly: [Tlhere is no other animal in North America that drives our imagination as does the great bear.. .. [Flew people travel on foot in the grizzly's home without thinking about what they will do if they see one. All bear tracks, droppings, scratchings, even a few hairs, become clues that a grizzly may be around. You ask yourself, how old is the sign? What does it mean?. .. Suddenly the wilderness comes alive.. .. (Herrero 259) ~. Placing such values on grizzlies mayqeem somewhat esoteric, but o* does not ;ble have too look too hard for more practical benefits, the most obvious of which is tourism. Every summer, visitors to Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks count the hope of a grizzly sighting among the motivations for (and, if successful, among the highlights of) their trips. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that people value grizzlies and often feel that sightings of the animals "added to [the] enjoyment of their trip" (Harting et al. century conservation movement, 88). Aldo Leopold, one of the pioneers of the 2 0 ' ~ recognized this value forty years ago. In his classic 6 o k , A Sand Count?,Almanac, he . \ laments over the extirpation of grizzlies in Arizona, which was driven by the desire to protect livestock. "[They] did not foresee," he writes, that "cow country would become tourist country, and as such have greater need of bears than of beefsteaks" (Leopold 13637). But the grizzly's value may reach beyond its ability to enchan@free-spending tourists. In his latest book-The Future o Life-Edward f 0. Wilson points out that "No one can guess the full future value of any kind of animal. It's potential is spread across a spectrum of know and as yet unimagined needs" (1 13). He illustrates this principle with the example of the blue whale, but his point is clear: we simply don't know which species will become valuable--or invaluable-in the future. In fact, bears are currently subjects I of medical research that holds promise for humankind. To a large degree ursine hibernation remains an intriguing scientific mystery. In his book The Great Bear Almanac, bear expert Gary Brown relates some of the relevant details: Recent research has better identified the remarkable physiology that occurs in bears during hibernation. Recycling appears to be the key to the months of inactivity without disastrous physiological effects. Bones of mammals, including humans, become thin and brittle during inactivity, but bears have a capacity to build new bone by recycling calcium the leaking into their blood.. .. A bear also has a unique system of recycling the urea it produces. They do not urinate during hibernation, and a build-up of urea could be deadly, but the urine is reabsorbed through the bladder wall back into the bear's system, where it is processed into amino acids and protein.. .. Researchers hope to isolate the bear's key to recycling and apply the process to human medicine. (Brown 153) In his book The Beast That Walks Like Man, Harold McCracken relates the words of an old Abnaki Indian: "A bear is wiser than man, because a man does not know how to live all winter without eating anything" (qtd. in Brown 147). This is not just an observation, it is also an assignment of value to the bear, who is seen as wise and having knowledge that could be beneficial to man. In a sense, this Abnaki man seems to be on the same page as Wilson. Both realize that other species possess abilities and properties understood, could prove beneficial to humans. This hidden knowledge contained within the bear is also an excellent example of Barry L pez's assertion that "The insights of aboriginal peoples are of inestimable value.. .in our relationships with the natural world.. ." of the worth, and potential worth, of individual of how we relate to and evaluate the k7 J 1& i J 4" I i I (Handout NP). Wilson's reev species also certainly qualifie natural world. any I~dzi ', f&n c~*G&~~-Lc OF P I J ~ , J ~ - pfi\b'l; 8 c L Given the fact that the grizzly is enda gered only in the lower 48, not globally, ~or\e~ha such long-term values may seem to be irrelevant to the issue of reintroduction. But the '1 fidtli, I s' discussion here is of attitudes and values, and I doubt that opponents of grizzly reintroduction would feel any different about their paychecks if the lower 48 grizzlies were the last in the world (though such a situation certainly might result in a more progressive federal policy). 0 1 The second aspect of opponents' objection to grizzly reintroduction-namely concern for personal safety-while a completely legitimate worry, is also a manifestation of a short-sighted view. This is clear enough. Those who object on this basis are primarily worried about themselves or loved ones being injured or killed by bears in their own lifetimes. I suppose that some may also be concerned about future generations of as yet unconceived progeny, but any such notions must pale in comparison with worries over the here and now. This response to the presence of animals that occasionally kill people is, of course, completely understandable and natural. Nevertheless, the odds of anyone being hurt by a reintroduced grizzly seem remote. Renowned bear attack expert Stephen Herrero puts the situation in perspective: "There are 700,000 black bears and 70,000 grizzly bears in North America and on average they kill three people a year and injure a dozen or two dozen" (Derr F 1). The population goal for the Selway-Bitterroot reintroduction is 280 bears (Grizzly). The FWS planned to introduce 5 bears a year for 5 years to establish a base population that it estimated would likely take 1 10 years or more to reach 280 individuals (Grizzly). The FWS has projected, based on a statistical analysis of grizzly populations in areas with use characteristics similar to the Selway-Bitterroot (the projection factored in the expected net increase in human visitation), that "human injury once bears are recovered 50- 1 10+ years in the future, [will be] less than one injury per year and less than one grizzly bear-induced human mortality every few decades" (Grizzly). Just because the chances of grizzly attack are remote does not mea that those who object to reintroduction because grizzlies are dangerous are misguided. In fact, the above FWS projection frankly admits that "bear-induced human mortality" is an expected I! 1 {W b.1 " I i,b~i'"' w . ( biA& 7 \P- $~fil(l - ( GJCL5%k 'It' LL 4 a lymj r &fit' consequence of reintroduction. What the insistence grizzlies not be reintroduced because they may occasionally harm people does reveal, is both a significantly anthropocentric view and a focus on short-term objectives (as well as a possible lack of proportional thinking). I do not mean to pooh-pooh the threat posed by grizzlies; one fatality every few decades might be statistically insignificant, but it will mean everything to the victim and his or her loved ones. But if the FWS prediction is accurate, it indicates a "bearinduced human mortality rate" so low as to be a minor element of the reintroduction equation. Is one human life a fair trade for the continued existence of an entire, celebrated species, whose ultimate value, as Edward 0. Wilson has pointed out, it both unknown and potentially "limitless?'( I 13). In fact, with a human mortality rate so low, it is not difficult to suggest ways in which grizzly reintroduction might have no effect on overall human mortality, or how it might even reduce it. For one thing, following the extirpation of grizzlies fi-om the Selway-Bitterroot, black bears have filled the vacant grizzly niche. This process has occurred widely in North American regions where the grizzly was eliminated (Herrero 6 f (ddGL J i;F f; cd"u ~ t f i b h ) p j-hkb 92). In the Selway-Bitterroot, reintroduced grizzlies are expected to reclaim their niche, and, thereby, reduce the local black bear population. Because black bears are typically smaller than grizzlies, and therefore require less food and acreage per individual, they generally exist in higher population densities than do grizzlies (Herrero 258). So more grizzlies would logically result in not only fewer black bears, but also a net reduction in ! ' the total Selway-Bitterroot bear (both species) population. This is relevant because black bears also injure and kill people. As Stephen Herrero has noted: "wild black bears found/ in rural or remote areas , ... occasionally try to kill and eat a human being" (Q-s)'. The , , ' / ' Selway-Bitterroot and environs certainly qualify as "rural and remote"; in fact, the region was specifically chosen as the prime reintroduction site in part because of its remoteness (Grizzly). A second factor of grizzly reintroduction that might work to reduce overall human mortality is the closure of backcountry roads that has often been an element of grizzly bear recovery plans (Bass 2). Such road closures could be a way in which grizzly reintroduction could actually result in fewer net human deaths. I think it is plausible to suggest that more than one person every few decades would be likely to die along some of the remote, ill-maintained backcountry roads that would likely be closed if grizzlies were reintroduced. I realize that these kinds of speculative arguments are stretched kind of thin here. \;\GC'y JJ \ Sd ' I My point is that the projected number of people who will be killed by reintroduced I grizzlies is so low that these tenuous arguments become entirely plausible. The still larger point is that those who object to grizzly reintroduction on the basis of increased risk to human safety are motivated by concerns over the more-or-less immediate mortality of themselves and their loved ones. Further, this concern seems out of proportion with the risk, and ultimately this rationabhows a clear focus on short-term, strongly anthropocentric values. (Stephen Herrero, in his authoritative Bear Attacks, writes that "if a book titled People Attacks were written for bears, it could only depict our species as being typically bloodthirsty killers-aggressive, fatal injury to bears [255].) Dirk Kempthorne, governor of Idaho, has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Selway-Bitterroot reintroduction plan. Kempthorne has labeled grizzlies as "flesh-eating, antisocial animals" (qtd. in B.D. 38), and has called the dangerous, often inflicting Q '9 - q +uliLnl) \ &ii\fion reintroduction plan "perhaps the first federal land-management action in history likely to C 1 (AA *.%L ~f dj * result in injury or death of members of the public" (qtd. in Whitman 28). Another Idaho elected official-Stan Davis, mayor of Salmon, Idaho (a town that is near the proposed to a FWS representative, "If I or someone in my family is ! ''bowlw;~ reintroduction area)-said b injured by one of your bears, I'm holding those behind reintroduction personally responsible for murder" (qtd. in Whitman 3 1). Such sentiments are not necessarily unwarranted, but, just like concerns over the near-future economic effects of reintroduction, they display the short-sighted point of view taken by reintroduction opponents. The risk is tiny, but these civic leaders still oppose reintroduction on the basis of the threat grizzlies pose to human safety, either ignoring or unaware of the potential long-term benefits of keeping grizzlies around. Those who support grizzly reintroduction, while not without their own short-term objectives (e.g. most would feel awful if bears were to go extinct in the lower 48 in their lifetimes), are primarily motivated by long-term goals. One such goal is the maintenance of the long-term health of ecosystems. Michael Soule, professor emeritus of biology at the University of California at Santa Cruz, has said that removing grizzly bears from an ecosystem could doom other plants and animals to extinction (Sheremata 19). Soule is a proponent of the "top-down" theory of ecosystem stability; this theory holds that large predators are important stabilizers of ecosystems, because they help control the populations of rapid-breeding organisms lower on the food chain (Sheremata 19). Gary Brown, former Bear Management Specialist at Yellowstone, has noted that bears create "feeding associations that are quite beneficial for other animals" (97). 14 \\ / / Grizzly proponents also often talk about saving the bears for posterity and for the benefit of the timeless "human mind, body, and soul" (Herrero 259). They also regard the effort to save the grizzly as a testing ground for learning how to prosper on our planet without destroying it. Stephen Herrero has summarized this view: "If we can learn to live with bears, especially the grizzly ... then maybe we can also find ways to use the finite resources of our continent and still maintain some of the diversity and natural beauty that were here when Columbus arrived" (Herrero 260). In some ways, grizzly proponents even see saving grizzlies as a moral challenge confronting humankind. This is definitely a manifestation of a long-term perspective. It reaches into our past and evaluates our course of action with regard to the natural world, and it looks into the hture, hoping and striving for a closer, more holistic relationship between man and the rest of creation. Doug Peacock has written that present-day bear management is rooted in Christian dominion and is still in the process of sorting out "good" from "bad" animals. The grizzly could accommodate our notion of what a stroll in the woods ought to be or go the way of he passenger pigeon. In the end, we wanted the bear to submit to the domestication we had demanded of the rest of the animals and join the barnyard that has become our bestiary. ( P a u x k 270) Aldo Leopold, commenting on the extirpation of the grizzly in the southwest, wrote: "We spoke harshly of the Spaniards who, in their zeal for gold and converts, had needlessly extinguished the native Indians. It did not occur to us that we, too, were the captains of an invasion too sure of its own righteousness" (1 37). so-called traditional lifestyles that brought wild nature to its knees in the first place and are keeping it there today" (qtd. in I think it is imperative to listen carefully to Peacock; the deserves careful thought and consideration. There is much at stake. Once grizzly (or any other organism), and all it has to offer, is gone forever. / / qq~,'" d , dbl \La- Leri ' . r ,fib \L\ ' Works Cited Bass, Rick. "Grizzly's Last Stand." Time 8 July 2002: 70-72. B.D. "Environmental Policy: Grizzly Reintroduction." Outside Apr. 2001 : 38. Brown, David E. The Grizzly in the Southwest: Documentary of an Extinction. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985. Brown, Gary. The Great Bear Almanac. New York: Lyons & Burford, 1993. Final Steps Completed For Plan To Reintroduce Grizzly Bear In Montana and Idaho. Nov. 16 2000. FWS 12 Dec. 2002 <http://www.fws.gov/pressre1/00-33.htm> Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem Final Rule and Record of Decision Questions and Answers. Nov. 2000. FWS 12 Dec. 2002 <http://www.r6.fws.gov/ bitterroot/quanda.htm> Harting, Albert L., et al. Grizzly Bear Compendium. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987. Hedstrom, Elizabeth. "Losing Ground." National Parks SeplOct. 1993: 40-46. Herrero, Stephen. Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. New York: Lyons Press, 1985. Jehl, Douglas. "Interior Dept. Halting Plan for Grizzlies In 2 States." New York Times 2 1 Dec. 2001, late ed.: A14. Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac: With Other Essays on Conservation From Round River. New York: Oxford UP, 1966. / Peacock, Doug. Grizzly Years: In Search of the American Wilderness. New York: Henry Holt, 1990. Petersen, David. Ghost Grizzlies. Boulder, Co: Johnson Books, 1995. Public Comment Analysis Now Available on Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Proposal. 22 Oct. 2001. FWS. 10 Oct. 2002 <http://www.r6.fws.gov/pressrel/0 1-47.htm> "PuM~c-Wts Grizzly Recovery to Proceed." National Wildlife Feb. 2002: 55. / Shepard, Pa 1, and Barry Sanders. The Sacred Paw: The Bear in Nature, Myth, and ..A. ueratf. New York: Viking, 1985. Sheremata, ~ a \ \ i s'The Predators Run the Show." Alberta Report 2 Nov. 1998: 19. . & U.S. Fish and Iildlife Service Proposes to Withdraw Plan to Reintroduce Grizzly Bears Into ~iiterroot Ecosystem. 20 June 2001. FWS. 10 Oct. 2002 <http://www.r6.fws 1 .gov/pressrel/O1-23.htm> J Whitman, IJavid. "The Return of the Grizzly." Atlantic Monthly Sep. 2000: 26-3 1 / Wilson, ~ d w a r d The Future of Life. New York: Knoph-Random, 2002. 0. i ,

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: