Yellowstone grizzlies may lose protections, while also losing food source
What do beetles, pine trees, grizzly bears, and global warming have in common? Check it: the U.S. plans to lift Endangered Species Act protections for Yellowstone-area grizzlies. But that move may be premature. Enter: high-altitude whitebark pines, the seeds of which are Yellowstone bears' main food source in late summer and fall. Enter: the mountain pine beetle, destroyer of pines, which used to chow only on mid-altitude trees but has increased its range as temperatures have risen. Thanks in large part to beetles, "We are very worried the whitebarks may be locally extirpated, if not driven extinct," says Diana Tomback of the Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation. And that spells bad news for grizzlies. The bears could seek refuge in Wyoming's Wind River Range, which computer models predict may stay cool enough to avoid beetle infestation until 2100. But greens, worried that bears may be hunted in the range if not protected, may sue to stop them from being delisted. And those are the bear facts.
source: The New York Times, Charles Petit, 30 Jan 2007
source: Vail Daily, Associated Press, Mike Stark, 22 Jan 2007
see also, in Gristmill: The battle for conservation science
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
elizabeth honeycreek Posted 10:52 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:14 am
01 Feb 2007
The Wind River valley in Wyoming might indeed provide a decent haven for grizzlies, if only the human residents could find it in their hearts to tolerate their presence. I am disappointed to read that the county including the Wind River Indian Reservation is strictly opposed to the bears' introduction. I cannot help wondering if that is the sentiment of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe tribes, as well as of the Euro-Americans who presumably call the shots.
This story poses an interesting question for animal-rights ethicists. Why do we tend to have more regard for the bears (and for the fascinating whitebark pines too, for that matter) than for the beetles? Countless individual beetles will die, as their respective mountain-top populations, which are perhaps as much island populations as is that of the Yellowstone grizzlies, eat up all the available food. Why do we not care about insect extirpations, as much as about mammal extirpations?
The "sliding-scale" approach, based on an old-fashioned spectrum of "less advanced" to "more advanced" animals, suggests that, e.g., the interests of no invertebrate deserve as much regard as the interests of any vertebrate. So that is one possible answer in the bear vs. beetle controversy.
I would prefer a sliding scale based on another consideration: the life cycle of the particular species. On the spectrum that I would propose, at one end are those animals that reproduce very frequently, in very large numbers, so that the vitality of a population (N.B., not of an entire species) is little dependent on the life of any individual; at the other end are those animals that reproduce infrequently, in small numbers, so that the vitality of a population more closely correlates to the life of any individual.
That seems to correspond pretty much to the invertebrate/vertebrate division, and, within vertebrates, to, say, the fish/mammal division, but not altogether. Each species must be studied individually. Also, there are other necessary considerations in addition to this one.
Not surprisingly, I find myself much more concerned for the bears than for the beetles. All the same, the mortality even of insects must always receive its due consideration.
Permalink
garpol Posted 8:23 pm
23 Mar 2007
Permalink