Question and Answers on the Reintroduction of the
Grizzly Bear
Abosede Ibikunle
1.
What are the major issues economic, safety, animal rights, civil rights for each stakeholder group? ● Environmentalists and animal rights groups are concerned with the sanctity of natural resources; letting nature take its course (and aiding in that effort) and how "Mother
Nature" shouldn't be fooled with. ● Local/state/federal government officials are concerned with the economic effects of grizzly bear reintroduction, the safety of residents, adhering to laws and regulations
(such as the ESA).
● Residents are also concerned, but are more locally, with the economic effects of reintroduction. ● Ranchers and loggers are concerned with the effect that the grizzly bears will have on their extractive industries (when and where they will be able to operate).
● Wildlife biologists are concerned with following federal law, yet constrained by local officials and citizens’ interests. ● Tourism/recreation groups (such as outfitters), look at grizzly bear reintroduction as a possible "draw" into the area. 2.
Are the opinions of local citizens more or less important than those of decisions makers in Washington D.C.? Why or why not?
Local citizens are more important than those of the decision makers because the decisions made affect the local citizens. Bears are dangerous and decision makers in D.C. Don't care about the local citizens but care about what is efficient and cheap.
3.
Given that reintroduction will occur on federal public lands, how important are the opinions of all citizens? Do you think that nonlocal citizens should have a say in grizzly bear reintroduction? Federal agencies are based in Washington, D.C., and often make decisions regarding their land, hundreds or thousands of miles away. Even local natural resource managers must adhere to their superiors based in Washington. A new line of research investigates how much
"more" influence local communities should have, given that they are
1.
What are the major issues economic, safety, animal rights, civil rights for each stakeholder group? ● Environmentalists and animal rights groups are concerned with the sanctity of natural resources; letting nature take its course (and aiding in that effort) and how "Mother
Nature" shouldn't be fooled with. ● Local/state/federal government officials are concerned with the economic effects of grizzly bear reintroduction, the safety of residents, adhering to laws and regulations
(such as the ESA).
● Residents are also concerned, but are more locally, with the economic effects of reintroduction. ● Ranchers and loggers are concerned with the effect that the grizzly bears will have on their extractive industries (when and where they will be able to operate).
● Wildlife biologists are concerned with following federal law, yet constrained by local officials and citizens’ interests. ● Tourism/recreation groups (such as outfitters), look at grizzly bear reintroduction as a possible "draw" into the area. 2.
Are the opinions of local citizens more or less important than those of decisions makers in Washington D.C.? Why or why not?
Local citizens are more important than those of the decision makers because the decisions made affect the local citizens. Bears are dangerous and decision makers in D.C. Don't care about the local citizens but care about what is efficient and cheap.
3.
Given that reintroduction will occur on federal public lands, how important are the opinions of all citizens? Do you think that nonlocal citizens should have a say in grizzly bear reintroduction? Federal agencies are based in Washington, D.C., and often make decisions regarding their land, hundreds or thousands of miles away. Even local natural resource managers must adhere to their superiors based in Washington. A new line of research investigates how much
"more" influence local communities should have, given that they are