Grizzlies starve as salmon disappear

Status
Not open for further replies.

AStone

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
24,174
Location
Far N, E coast
Even though this is not a hunting story per se, I'm starting this thread in Hunting because it seems hunting-related: bears are both hunted and - sometimes - become predators of hunters.

For example, a closed thread in Revolvers explored a recent incident in Alaska involving a guide shooting an older grizzly with a handgun in self-defense.

There was a fair amount of discussion there about the fact that the grizzly in question was not only older, but emaciated, as in looking very hungry.

This story is undoubtedly related to that.

I hope discussions here stay on the high road (unlike those that characterized latter pages of the closed thread). Let's try to stay away from conspiracy theory arguments (e.g., "This story is made up by a bunch of eco-wackies trying to save this or that...", yada yada yada). I'll watch for independent verification or refutation, and post them here as I find them.

Nem

Grizzlies starve as salmon disappear

As salmon numbers drop, bears are also few and far between along B.C.'s wild central coast – signaling what conservationists say is an unfolding ecological disaster

Mark Hume, Vancouver —
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009

First the salmon vanished, now the bears may be gone too.

Reports from conservationists, salmon-stream walkers and ecotourism guides all along British Columbia's wild central coast indicate a collapse of salmon runs has triggered widespread death from starvation of black and grizzly bears. Those guides are on the front lines of what they say is an unfolding ecological disaster that is so new that it has not been documented by biologists.

“I've never experienced anything like this. There has been a huge drop in the number of bears we see,” said Doug Neasloss, a bear-viewing guide with the Kitasoo-Xaixais tribes in Klemtu, about 180 kilometres south of Kitimat.

Mr. Neasloss said in recent weeks that he and other guides have visited 16 rivers where they usually encounter groups of bears feeding on spawning salmon.

“I've been doing this for 11 years and this is the worst I've seen it,” he said. “Last year on the Mussel River, I saw 27 bears. This year it's six. That's an indication of what it's like everywhere.”

He said on another river last fall, he saw 12 black bears and three spirit bears, rare black bears with white fur.

“This year, there are three black bears and no white bears,” he said.

Mr. Neasloss said for several years salmon runs have been in decline in the area, but last year was particularly bad.

“I've never seen bears hungry in the fall before, but last year, they were starving,” he said. “I noticed in the spring there weren't as many bears coming out, but I felt it was premature to jump to any conclusions. … but now there just aren't any bears. It's scary,” he said.

“I think a lot are dead. I think they died in their dens [last winter],” he said.

Ian McAllister, Conservation Director of Pacific Wild, a non-profit conservation group on Denny Island, near Bella Bella, said he's heard similar reports.

“I've talked to stream walkers [who monitor salmon runs] who have been out for a month and have yet to see any bears,” he said. “There are just no bears showing up. I hear that from every stream walker on the coast.”

Mr. McAllister said it used to be easy to visit salmon streams in the Great Bear Rainforest, a large area of protected forest on the central coast, and see 20 to 30 bears a day feasting on salmon.

“Now you go out there and there are zero bears. The reports are coming in from Terrace to Cape Caution … the bears are gone,” he said.

“And we haven't seen any cubs with mothers. That's the most alarming part of this,” Mr. McAllister said.

He said the problem is that chum salmon runs in the area have collapsed.

While there are strong runs of pink salmon into rivers on the central coast, chum, which are much bigger fish that spawn later in the year, are the key food item for bears preparing for hibernation.

Without an adequate supply of big salmon late in the year, said Mr. McAllister, bears do not have enough fat to survive the winter in their dens.

“The lack of salmon last fall, coupled with a long, cold winter, is what's at the root of this,” he said.

“River systems that in the past had 50,000 to 60,000 chum have now got 10 fish,” he said. “The chum runs have been fished out. We've seen the biological extinction of a [salmon] species, and now we're seeing the impact on bears.”

Fred Seiler, with Silvertip Ecotours, in Terrace, said the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should not allow salmon to be commercially harvested in areas where stocks are in trouble.

“This should be a huge red flag for DFO … but they continue to manage British Columbia's salmon fishery in a total state of denial,” he said. “Even as we speak, they are still considering more [salmon fishing] openings when not enough fish have returned to the rivers.

In a joint statement, Mr. McAllister, Mr. Seiler and Mr. Neasloss called on the government to close all chum-salmon fisheries and cancel the fall grizzly-bear hunt.

The worst salmon disaster this year has been on the Fraser River, on the south coast, where 10.6 million sockeye were expected, but only about 1.6 million returned.

“The collapse of the Fraser sockeye and now the north-coast chum salmon runs is leading to ecological collapse of our coast ecosystems,” said Mr. McAllister.
 
Last edited:
It makes sence. Fewer salmon = fewer bears. Tragic situation if you ask me. Everything in nature has a purpose.
 
If this truly is a current dilemma, that tells me the Department of Fisheries isn't doing its job. They are well aware of how problems like this begin and they should have cut off commercial fishing in low populated areas from the very beginning. I don't want to get economical/political, but the base of this problem from what I understand could be money. Cutting back on commercial fishing is taking a big chunk of yearly earnings and the current recession has companies scrambling for penney’s. Now the animals are having to pay the consequences. I'm no animal rights activist, but some of this stuff pisses me off!! What really pisses me off is when animals have to pay the ultimate sacrifice for human stupidity! I'd like to see a couple of these guys who make these decisions in a dark alley about midnight or so.
 
Have we become so completely arrogant (as humans) that we think we control/affect the weather and other natural cycles?

How did all those Ice ages occur prior to the SUV? The earth is constantly changing and always has been in a state of change.

Anyone who hunts or fishes knows that some years bring better quarry than other years. It depends largely on the weather. If we get good rain and good temperatures, then crops grow. When crops grow the animal population grows and animal health is superior. In dry and hot or very cold years, animal population is reduced. Such is the way of nature.

This environmental-eco blame game has to stop.

Nature has a way of working things out. Anyone who spends time in nature understands that fact. :)
 
This story is undoubtedly related to that.

No, it is not. You're comparing a DLP shooting on the peninsula (something which happens hundreds of times in this area every year) with some reports of starving bear over a THOUSAND MILES down the coast. That's the problem with getting your information in little bits and pieces.

Each run of each species in each stream is different. As always, some salmon runs are doing great others are meager. Others we thought were collapsing turn out to be doing great. Every Alaskan knows how backwards the Canadian fisheries management is, so it's no big surprise if they're running out. But even with the best management the runs go in cycles and can vary greatly from year to year and place to place. And the counting system is prone to screwups.

There are very sensitive species out there that can vanish with a strong breeze. Bear are not one of them. Both black and brown bear are incredibly resilient and able to relocate to alternate food sources. Their body size and behavior adapt to a very wide range of conditions. The same species can live on fat-rich salmon or on a lean diet of roots and small game. The only reason the brown ones vanished from much of the lower 48 was because they were intentionally eradicated. Left alone they always, always find a way.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't think that it would be an arrogant statement to say that the actions of humans could affect weather and other natural cycles, I'm sure all the species we have driven to endangerment and extinction could attest to that.
 
Global warming IS happening.

Natural or man made, dont matter, it is warmer and things are changeing.
Its most likely a cycle, and some species of the past didnt recover .....Mamoth, Sabertooth, ect, and some did , man, Brownbears and such.

I hunt year round for a living and observing weather and animals is my life......and I spend about 5 days a week doing something outside, and the last 40 years of my life tell me were in for change, and the spooky part is that its the great unknown.

The ice IS going away. No more Walrus here, no more Beluga, no more large Seals, like we had 15 years ago (when it started thinning) and all those in memeory before that
The Salmon fisherys are collapsed/collapsing south of here , the Yukon is the biggest, and were worried. Weve had 4 bad salmon 4 years here inna row, and we fish to eat, not commercialy. I check that net and I know......seen it Boom and bust, with the various Salmon, maby thats why theres 4 or 5 kinds using the same stream.

Fish are a base source of protine for Bears AND much , much more.
If the Salmon dont show up to spawn , then the parents dont die and rot and feed the streams insects, fry, snails, ect, as a base in the food chain, so way more than Bears are effected

Darwinism comes into play here; warmer water temps are allowing acidifycation of our Arctic ocean and Chuk-Chi seas, and salmon have a tough time with parasites and their immune system in the stuff. The tough are surviving and spawning, and hopefully their fry will be tougher too. Like any depleted species, something either survives and gets stronger or it go's extinct.

One side note; salmon are expanding their range to our North. The Kotzebue Sound used to be the Northern limit for salmon (we have Kings, Chum Pinks and silvers) and Chums and Silvers are starting to spawn and return to spawn to rivers at more Northern rivers, by Point Hope, Barrow and beyond...... this is in the last 10 years, so we may reap benifits, but its just getting established.

This world is headed for a big change, the strong will survive, its the Change thats a Bitch.
 
Last edited:
Well, in the last 10 years, climatologists seem to be worried about a new ice age. We have had significant cooling and they say it's due to sun spot activity, a new modern day "maunder minimum" (google it). I don't believe much of what scientist claim, anyway, with their studies. This and that causes cancer, oh wait, no, now it's good for you. All the global warming hype is driven by politics, raw politics. Little of it is real. The only thing I can guarantee you is that change is a constant. The number of species that have gone extinct in the last 500,000,000 years is staggering. We only know about a tiny few whose remains we have evidence for. Extinction is part of nature. We, as a species, are not immune to that. But, I don't sit around worrying about what cannot be changed. Just as we survived the melting of the ice sheets, we will deal with whatever comes. We are very adaptable as a species, not like some orchid growing in the rain forest or a tropical fish with a temperature tolerance of 5 degrees Fahrenheit. I've not seen a T Rex roaming Texas in a while. Extinction in that case was a good thing, else, we would not be here.

I think salmon have far more to worry about via over-fishing than climate at the moment, however. If man is affecting bear populations via salmon populations, it is more likely because of overfishing of the resource. In my lifetime, I've seen blue crab populations plumet in this area due to what I feel is overfishing by commercial crabbers. When I was a kid, there wasn't a lot of commercial crabbing down here. When all the Vietnamese "boat people" came in around 1980, shrimp and crab populations took a big time hit. I think commercial fishing, as human populations continue to explode exponentially and commercial fish farming becomes more prevailent, is doomed to the fate of commercial hunting in the early 20th century. Yes, man can affect the fate of species, but I don't think it's tied to the climate, any of it. It's all tied to overpopulation of our species, pretty much, though, if you get to the root of it. As a species, our environment does have an ultimate carrying capacity. Modern agriculture has raised it and some day maybe we will just walk up to a machine that pieces a meal together out of available molecules like Captain Kirk had, but even thin, there are only so many people a given space can support. But, trust me, sooner or later nature will rule. We are still subject to those rules. All I can say is, you're going to have to deal with it when it comes. Change is always the only constant. Hopefully, I will have passed on from this world by that time.
 
Last edited:
Global warming IS happening.

Absolutely Wrong! The earth is actually cooling... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2iF99kOY

Why do some people expect temperatures to be constant? It never has been and never will be. The "global warming" movement is not about weather, it is about politics. It provides governments an excuse to regulate, tax and therefore control parts of the economy and citizenry. Those of us that do not seek the facts are simply useful idiots helping them strip our freedoms and take more of our money.

We have about 200 years of data on temperature. With that data it appears that there has been a change of about .05 degrees. Were thermometers super accurate 200 years ago? When I was a kid we still used mercury based thermometers with a red line in glass. Is it possible that someone just made a .05 degree mistake? :confused: Sure it is. But the more important point is that the earth is around 4 BILLION years old. With 200 years of data, 'scientists' have determined the earth's climate is changing due to human presence and activity. 200 years is but a blink in the lifespan of this planet. It is completely false to make any conclusion with such an incomplete set of data. It is quite ridiculous if you just think about it.

BTW... the 'scientists' that forecast all this "global warming" hype are the 'scientists' that can't get a three day forecast right. :scrutiny:
 
Anyone who hunts or fishes knows that some years bring better quarry than other years. It depends largely on the weather.

You are 100% right BUT.

We take off a percentage for human use every year. Call it a quota, call it a ticket, whatever.

In a bad year, this quota compounds the problem. And industry (OK, my specific frame of reference is crayfish and the like in South Africa) screams like a little girl if their quota is reduced. Government is under pressure. Over(fishing|hunting|harvesting) might leave years of legacy.

There are short cycles and long cycles and in the end, the Earth will survive. We might not, the polar bears might not, the Tasmanian Devils might not... but I think we all agree that we need to keep our conscience clean.

And that's where we as a group of human beings fail horribly.
 
Interesting story and interesting replies. Like global warming, you see folks arguing that it's human induced and those that think it's just a natural cycle of nature. My hunch, like global warming, it's a little of both.

Could be just an easy way for Canada to reduce bear numbers....kinda the same way the American Government tried to eradicate the Native Americans by hiring Buffalo Hunters to kill off their main source of food, shelter and tools.
 
Interesting responses here so far. I'm not surprised by the diversity of opinions.

However, the quickest way to get this thread closed is to continue to debate the global warming issue. (I speak from experience.) Besides, there's no need for it in this case. As OP, I request that we not discuss that here.

Climate changes may or may not be an ultimate cause of the proximate issue at hand - declining salmon numbers leading to declining bear numbers (assuming that it is indeed a real issue - clearly some think it is not).

I'm most interested here in trying to gather stories of evidence that either support that claim or refute it. Perhaps we can debate the climate issue another day, but for now, please set it aside.

Nem
 
Last edited:
Would probably be able to find some salmon census data through the "Transactions of the American Fisheries Society". I'm betting reductions in any population numbers is tied to commercial over-fishing, though. Estimating populations of species of pelagic marine fishes is not an exact science, but salmon being anadromous, I would expect census techniques to be a bit more precise. I've never been involved with salmon fisheries, so I'm just guessing, but I'd think mark/recapture methods might be fairly accurate for these fish.

Actually, the article seems to bear out the over-fishing problem....

“This should be a huge red flag for DFO … but they continue to manage British Columbia's salmon fishery in a total state of denial,” he said. “Even as we speak, they are still considering more [salmon fishing] openings when not enough fish have returned to the rivers.
 
Last edited:
I always find it amazing that there are folks who don't believe man can affect the environment, or cause a fishery to collapse.

And yet, lots of fisheries have collapsed.

I have an Uncle who is in his eighties. He used to hunt up in the American North, and in Canada in the 40’s and 50’s. In May, for no apparent reason at all, he just out and told me he has seen evidences of change in the areas he used to hunt. From changes in melt seasons, animal behavior, and changes in vegetation.

I hate to tell you all, it is real, it is man made, and it is irreversible.

I am going to have a nice life, but the generations down the road, they will curse us.
 
Last edited:
I think this article is a great example of the decline of journalism.

The title is
Grizzlies starve as salmon disappear

Yet, there is no evidence of starving Grizzlies in the article. There is no evidence of dead bears at all... only some guy's opinion that they must be dying in their dens, presumably because no one has seen any dead bears. Perhaps it is a case of alien abduction. :what: It sounds improbable, but it is at least as possible as the as the theory that a 1/2 degree change in temperature can cause such things. ;)

It is journalism that is dying.
 
Excellent point. Were are the bear census data? Where's the evidence of cause of the decline? Bear eat salmon, sure, but do they not eat other stuff? Are they not adaptable? They are an omnivorous generalist species, after all. They're not specialized to eat fish. It's not their only food source.
 
Ok, guys, let's see if we can do a better job here than merely slinging opinions, which is exactly what some of you are accusing Hume (reporter) of doing. We can sling opinions until the cows come home; but until there's some substance behind those opinions, they're just that: opinions.

In the spirit of a college term paper, let's see if we can actually do some research and find evidence to support our claims (and thereby, simultaneously, either supporting or refuting Hume's claims).

For example, KD, how about you find some references stating that bear populations in BC are healthy and not declining. (The closer the date of publication to 2009 the better. Studies published in 1990's aren't going to be very useful because populations can crash very fast.)

Slamfire1, how about citing some studies (post URL's to or a quote from a book, complete with title, author and page numbers) about declining fisheries.

Etc. You get it. Let's get past opinions and actually cite some hard data.

Actually, the article seems to bear out the over-fishing problem....
Even though this is (potentially) a tragic story, that's funny, right there. :D
 
Bear eat salmon, sure, but do they not eat other stuff? Are they not adaptable? They are an omnivorous generalist species, after all. They're not specialized to eat fish. It's not their only food source.
MCgunner is right about that: grizz are omnivores, not predators; they'll eat almost anything, plant or animal, living or dead.

I think the point of salmon runs is gorging to add weight for hibernation. (I'll abide by my own suggestion and see if I can find a reference to that, then post it here by edit.) Salmon offer a very concentrated, easily-captured source of proteins and lipids. For griz, it must be like setting up camp for a few weeks in a burger joint that's giving away food.

Take those salmon away, and Mr/s Griz have to find enough other food to gain that "few hundred kilos" of weight another way. If there's a prolonged drought when they're trying to do that, that could cause problems.
 
A grizzly bear expert is dismissing claims British Columbia's coastal grizzly bears are dying of starvation because of declining salmon runs as alarmist.

"The likelihood that you have adult bears starving to death as a consequence of a decline in a single food source is very small," Sterling Miller, senior biologist with the U.S. National Wildlife Federation, said in an interview Wednesday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gC_WCiuPtoZJzASlMZhBUUPXZQ5A

As noted in my earlier post, bear are incredibly adaptable. They have evolved to be able to rely on alternate food sources if their primary food source fails them. Salmon runs fail all the time due to a myriad of factors totally unrelated to human consumption. Sometimes there's not enough rain to trigger the run and the salmon pool up in the ocean near the river mouth getting eaten by sharks and sea lions. Sometimes there's too much rain, making it difficult for the bears to reach the salmon. And of course the exact timing is very difficult to predict etc etc

Besides, when the bear get hungry you will see MORE of them, not fewer. If you're not seeing them around a river with a bad salmon run, that's because the salmon run is bad and they've gone off to get something else to eat. They can smell the fish coming from astonishing distances, so when the runs do happen the bear will appear.

Now if there's a big run and NO bear are there, then you can start to worry. As is the case in much of the NW where the brown bear were largely exterminated.
 
Last edited:
For example, KD, how about you find some references stating that bear populations in BC are healthy and not declining.

I'm not saying that they are increasing or declining. I did not write the article. If I had written such an article, I would include facts to support my position. If the author is going to report things as fact, he has the responsibility to provide evidence. The fact that the article provides no evidence one way or the other, with regard to either fish or bear populations is what casts doubt on the entire article. What he wrote may be accurate, but with no evidence how do we know? It is lazy journalism.
 
kdstrick said:
I'm not saying that they are increasing or declining. I did not write the article. If I had written such an article, I would include facts to support my position.
Right. I didn't say that you wrote such an article. I suggested that you find some evidence counter to what Hume wrote.

My assertion is that if we are going to discuss this, we need to back our assertions with data.

Again, I say, I hope to do with this thread what some are accusing Hume of not doing: citing evidence more carefully.

I was merely offering you an opportunity to do that. Do as you wish with it, including ignoring my suggestion.
 
Cosmoline said:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...SlMZhBUUPXZQ5A

Good article, Cosmo.

However, it's clear that the experts cited in that article are being just as speculative as Hume and Pacific Wild spokespeople.

Here's Miller's statement following the one you quoted above.

"I don't believe it's credible from the evidence that I see quoted . . .
that there's any reason to be concerned about the population of adult bears."
"...from the evidence I see quoted...".

That is, he has no counter evidence.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top