Fossa
Junior Member
Posts: 77 
|
Post by Fossa on Jul 9, 2013 18:23:44 GMT
Is everyone out enjoying the sunshine, or have people given up already?!  I'm gradually working my way backwards through all the BBC Wildlife Magazines I haven't read. I've just read an article about polar bears. Apparently scientists have been discussing whether it would be appropriate to provide supplementary feeding to wild bears in future. There are concerns that in future, due to climate change, in some parts of their range the sea ice they rely on to access food (mainly harp seals) won't be around for long enough and they will starve - so this is where supplementary feeding would come in. It's argued that this could help support tourism in areas like Western Hudson Bay. I have to say, I have mixed feelings about this. Whilst I'd hate to see bears die out in some areas, it's hardly a natural existence for them, and it's not going to be a temporary measure. Other options that could be considered are translocation from areas where habitat is declining to those where it persists, and 'population reduction' where declining habitat can only support fewer animals. I'd be interested to find out what others think about this. |
|
ollie
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by ollie on Jul 10, 2013 2:57:57 GMT
It's a very tough one, isn't it? I can't think of many things more tragic than seeing one of the world's great carnivores become reliant on humans for food. What next, the bears would learn to "beg" for a leg of bison to be thrown their way? On the other hand, it seems like half the world and his wife will happily help support songbirds by the sale of feeders and foodstuffs. Is there a real difference? I wouldn't say so. True, one will provide delightful music to cheer even the foulest of moods, whilst the other will bite yer head off as soon as look at you but we shouldn't really go making one rule for one threatened type of animal and another rule for other animals in the same boat (except maybe for vectors of disease / great terror  ). How about a kind of compromise? Of course it could be darned impractical but if you're going to provide supplementary feeding, how about administering a polar bear contraceptive to the females? The last thing you want is supplementary feeding helping populations in most peril with them suddenly finding themselves more than capable of breeding, further exacerbating the problem. Is that wrong? Or is it a fair exchange? Ultimately, leaving them to starvation or relocating them seems the best solution, particularly in the long run. Whatever they decide, I'm sure there'll be a fair few in opposition! |
|
Fossa
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by Fossa on Jul 10, 2013 19:04:42 GMT
You make a fair point about the birds (although I'm not sure about the 'leaving them to starvation' being the 'best solution' for the bears!)  I suppose I've been as guilty (if that's the right word) as anyone of feeding the birds in the past, so this probably makes me a little hypocritical. It's nice to watch the birds and feel you're doing your bit. But I've started to develop more mixed feelings towards bird feeding of late. There should normally be plentiful food without them having to rely on us, and supplementary feeding has been implicated in the spread of disease (even if you clean your feeders every day there's still a risk). In addition, during my MSc I did a placement with a wildlife pathologist who was of the opinion that providing supplementary feeding for garden birds in late winter brings them 'into condition' too soon, so they breed too early and there is insufficient invertebrate prey for their chicks, which as a consequence are less likely to survive. Whether there is any truth in this, or it is simply the conjecture of one person, I don't know. RSPB promote the benefits of supplemental feeding for birds - but then they sell bird feed and feeders, so - if I were to look at this sceptically - there is a vested interest. I'm inclined just to go with supplementary feeding during the harsh weather, although you could argue that since this is natural we shouldn't interfere. Or you could argue that this is down to climate change, for which man in responsible - so it is our responsibility to look after other species. Which brings us back to the bears (and my hypocrisy) - by the same token then, we should feed them. From what I've heard, contraceptives for wildlife are pretty challenging to develop. Would your hypothetical goal be to stop them breeding so they would eventually die out in some parts of their range? |
|
ollie
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by ollie on Jul 10, 2013 20:02:03 GMT
Leaving their survival to nature and natural selection (which includes starvation. I wouldn't wish starvation on any life form - but I accept it happens  ). I guess I didn't think that through and still the above attempt at toning it down's none too great. (oops) Culling is the kinder alternative? If / when all else fails? I guess so. Nature of the ice caps is particularly vulnerable to man's exhaust fumes, isn't it? It's not like we can "just plant a forest" like is a possible solution for some species in theory / practice in other parts of the world. We can't just plant ice floes. Even bleaker times are ahead then? And spoon feeding vulnerable species might be one of the few remaining options open to us. If we can't stop the flood of extinctions coming our way, maybe we can at least slow it down? (Of course that's the whole point of conservation). The contraception suggestion again may have been poorly thought through / spur of the moment, also. But maybe the time has to come to deem no place on Earth 'wild' anymore, getting more population biologists in, monitoring everything, ensuring that no animal has it too good (where future contraceptives / culling may have to come in) to the detriment of others. Jurassic park meet 1984. |
|
).
).