4 ms·

They will need to watch very carefully for any negative relationship with the endemic Vancouver Island Marmot, that only lives in a couple spots in the Island.

They will need to watch very carefully for any negative relationship with the endemic Vancouver Island Marmot, that only lives in a couple spots in the Island. In this case, those bears will need to be captured and moved out of the Island again. Grizzlies have the rest of N America to live.

steve_adams_86 2y ago
The marmots are in so few locations and in such small numbers, it seems exceedingly unlikely that it would become an issue. It would be awful if it was a problem though. The marmots have been having record years, and their recovery is really just beginning.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  1) Grizzlies are known to ear marmots if they can catch them. Those bears are able to move big stones. One bear that would specialize on open the tunnels and chase the rodents on their nests, could trigger the demise of the wild population in months or weeks. Even before we could notice it. 2) Bears will compete for the same fruits and resources in autumn and have big appetites. Marmots need those fruits to survive winter. 3) Vancouver Marmot societies can collapse suddenly if the number is reduced, because they need a minimum number of watchers for protection while the other eat. The risk simply doesn't worth it at this moment. Professional advice should be relocation of the bears until the marmot situation improves and creates a minimum number of individuals that would act as a safety buffer. Those bears at least should be radiotracked ASAP and followed by Biologists and specialized workers. That would be the minimum action required. If they enter on the area with marmots they must go. Prioritizing safety of the critically endangered animals over the common species is the correct decision.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    I agree they should be tracked, absolutely. I should have specified that I wouldn’t expect it to be an issue in the short term. Eventually they would almost certainly interact, though at that point hopefully the marmots will be established with stable populations. I also agree that prioritizing endangered species is the right decision here. We have more than enough bears on the island. We don’t really need to ensure grizzlies stay in the mix at the moment, haha.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    I have kinda mixed feelings on this. Protecting an endangered species against human hunting, habitat reduction, or other unnatural dangers makes total sense. But what's unnatural about grizzlies? Were they introduced onto the island by man? Nope. For that matter, the bears on Kodiak -- how did they get there in the first place? They have plenty of salmon so they probably don't need to eat marmots, if there are any. But maybe they wiped out other species we don't know about. What are you going to do to protect them against other natural predators? And why not introduce them into other suitable habitats, like we've done with wolves in the US? Then we wouldn't be so dependent on one island. Edit: this is in marked contrast to New Zealand trying to eliminate the stoats and other introduced mammals who are not native and are wiping out the bird species who are. The bears got there on their own.
Keysh 2y ago
Are a few brown bears more dangerous to marmots than the many black bears that already live there?
- pvaldes 2y ago
  Yes, They are much more strong and need more meat to survive. Being able or not to lift a heavy rock can be the difference between an entire colony of marmots wiped or not. With such small populations of gregarious animals, losing 10 or 20 marmots by three bears in a couple of nights is a serious issue. Is close to the number of survivors in the wild before the rewilding projects started. Black bears must have some effect on marmots. Both species compete for the food, but the effect can be difficult to study (Black bears eat lots of ants for example, and ants eat surprisingly big amounts of plants also). Ecology is so complex that must be managed by trained professionals, able to see the whole picture, not for companies driven toward selling more newspapers (In the same way as computer security, hospitals, or any other issue important to us; that would cause disasters if not addressed sensibly).

steve_adams_86 2y ago

The marmots are in so few locations and in such small numbers, it seems exceedingly unlikely that it would become an issue. It would be awful if it was a problem though. The marmots have been having record years, and their recovery is really just beginning.

pvaldes 2y ago
1) Grizzlies are known to ear marmots if they can catch them. Those bears are able to move big stones. One bear that would specialize on open the tunnels and chase the rodents on their nests, could trigger the demise of the wild population in months or weeks. Even before we could notice it. 2) Bears will compete for the same fruits and resources in autumn and have big appetites. Marmots need those fruits to survive winter. 3) Vancouver Marmot societies can collapse suddenly if the number is reduced, because they need a minimum number of watchers for protection while the other eat. The risk simply doesn't worth it at this moment. Professional advice should be relocation of the bears until the marmot situation improves and creates a minimum number of individuals that would act as a safety buffer. Those bears at least should be radiotracked ASAP and followed by Biologists and specialized workers. That would be the minimum action required. If they enter on the area with marmots they must go. Prioritizing safety of the critically endangered animals over the common species is the correct decision.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  I agree they should be tracked, absolutely. I should have specified that I wouldn’t expect it to be an issue in the short term. Eventually they would almost certainly interact, though at that point hopefully the marmots will be established with stable populations. I also agree that prioritizing endangered species is the right decision here. We have more than enough bears on the island. We don’t really need to ensure grizzlies stay in the mix at the moment, haha.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  I have kinda mixed feelings on this. Protecting an endangered species against human hunting, habitat reduction, or other unnatural dangers makes total sense. But what's unnatural about grizzlies? Were they introduced onto the island by man? Nope. For that matter, the bears on Kodiak -- how did they get there in the first place? They have plenty of salmon so they probably don't need to eat marmots, if there are any. But maybe they wiped out other species we don't know about. What are you going to do to protect them against other natural predators? And why not introduce them into other suitable habitats, like we've done with wolves in the US? Then we wouldn't be so dependent on one island. Edit: this is in marked contrast to New Zealand trying to eliminate the stoats and other introduced mammals who are not native and are wiping out the bird species who are. The bears got there on their own.

Keysh 2y ago

Are a few brown bears more dangerous to marmots than the many black bears that already live there?

pvaldes 2y ago
Yes, They are much more strong and need more meat to survive. Being able or not to lift a heavy rock can be the difference between an entire colony of marmots wiped or not. With such small populations of gregarious animals, losing 10 or 20 marmots by three bears in a couple of nights is a serious issue. Is close to the number of survivors in the wild before the rewilding projects started. Black bears must have some effect on marmots. Both species compete for the food, but the effect can be difficult to study (Black bears eat lots of ants for example, and ants eat surprisingly big amounts of plants also). Ecology is so complex that must be managed by trained professionals, able to see the whole picture, not for companies driven toward selling more newspapers (In the same way as computer security, hospitals, or any other issue important to us; that would cause disasters if not addressed sensibly).