Thank you for the sources Dave, for the most part they support my assertion that Mr Solotaroff exaggerated his conclusions that the recent bear attacks in the greater yellowstone area are a direct result of climate change.
Dr. Everts death, was not caused by an attack from a hungry bear, but was an unfortunate accident caused by a bear recovering from sedation. It is likely that bear-human encounters will increase as the pine bark nuts decrease (as your google sources suggest), but this particular death, which Mr. Solotaroff mentioned specifically in his interview, was not a result of the pine beetle epidemic. Mr. Solotaroff claimed that all the trout species (cutthroat, brook, and rainbow) in Yellowstone were diminished, because the streams were warming due to climate change, the google sources you provided mention no evidence of warming waters. The cutthroat numbers have decreased, but as a result of the invasive species lake trout, not because the waters are warming as Mr Solotaroff claimed in the interview on NPR. Climate change is a real problem for our western ecosystems, for all ecosystems. But putting forth a scare tactic, that climate change is causing grizzly bears to attack humans does not win over the climate deniers. The climate deniers solution would be to shoot more grizzly bears, not trade in their SUV for a Prius. Grizzly bears are always dangerous. Non-fatal bear attacks (and occasionally fatal ones) happen every year. Anyone going into bear country, whether it is in the park or not does so with the knowledge of risk. The tone of the interview was wrong. I still hold that Solotaroff made too many linkages that are not supported, and they appear as "smoke". Journalists, especially those who are not scientists (such as Solotaroff) should learn from journalists who are scientists (such as you Dave, i recall your posts from last week). My problem with journalism is not influenced by any bias I have against journalists, I am biased against exaggerated statements. NPR generally consults scientists when presenting pieces such as this. i am disappointed that NPR did not follow up with scientists who are actually doing the work. LM On Apr 17, 2011, at 3:27 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Before attacking journalists, Lynn, maybe you should do some fact-checking on your own. It seems Solotaroff is not too far off base -- there certainly seems to be enough proverbial "smoke" to make the claims you attack him for: >From Scientific American: Lack of food drives human-grizzly conflicts—and human-grizzly fatalities (http://bit.ly/gEteZB) >From Billings Gazette: Scarce pine nuts leaves Yellowstone grizzlies hungry, more dangerous (http://bit.ly/eql2yl) >From the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service -- in 2003!: How will the supply of Whitebark Pine Nuts affect Grizzlies in Yellowstone? (http://1.usa.gov/gRPLBf) >From National Parks Traveller: Bison, Pine Nuts, Trout and Grizzlies: Perfect Storm For Yellowstone National Park's Wildlife Managers? (http://bit.ly/hvimcP) >From Deseret News -- in 2003: Bumper crop of pine nuts for grizzlies (http://bit.ly/id9v0v) >From Environment360 -- in 2009: Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bears Face Threats on Two Fronts (http://bit.ly/eeavZx) >From Yellowstone Science -- in 2006: Grizzly Bear Nutrition and Ecology Studies in Yellowstone National Park (http://bit.ly/dOLbYV) All this is from the first 10 hits of a Google search on the subject -- all of it supports the notion that loss of important forage may drive bears into regions where they are more likely to come into contact and confrontation with humans. If you know of contrary evidence, we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, your attack on journalism seems driven more by your own bias than on any actual fault with the work journalists do. Journalists do NOT have to wait until the scientific community makes up its mind -- which it almost never does on anything -- before drawing their own conclusions about an issue. Journalists are supposed to be independent, too, and sometimes they might (heaven forbid!) come to different conclusions that scientists will. Nevertheless, what they say and write should should be based on evidence, or at least on reasonable inference drawn from available evidence. It appears Solotaroff's statements are journalistically -- even scientifically -- valid at this point. Dave On 4/17/2011 12:17 PM, Lynn M. Moore wrote: I heard the NPR interview yesterday and was left angered. I have been a public radio supporter for many years. NPR has been under attack for presenting unbalanced coverage. For the first time, I have to agree. The only part of the interview with Paul Solotaroff that may represent current scientific hypotheses is the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Ten years of drought in Wyoming is linked to the pine beetle epidemic, and is a significant departure from the historical range of variability in this system. The loss of the pine nuts represents a significant loss of food source to the grizzly. But the accuracy of the interview stops there. Paul Solotaroff is speculating about the loss of trout (brook, cutthroat, and rainbow) numbers. While there may be an effect upon these populations from climate change, I do not think that scientists have enough data as yet to make that statement. Most fish research concerning climate change is focused upon downstream areas where the warming trend is more pronounced. Anyone who has ever hunted outside of Yellowstone Park knows that for decades, for as long as managed hunting has occurred, the grizzly bears of Yellowstone Park have learned the gun shot "dinner bell." The bears have not suddenly learned this behavior over the last ten years. Finally, if you read the original "Ghost Park" article by Solotaroff in Men's Journal, two paragraphs are devoted to the gory details concerning the bear fatalities last year. Not even the right wing conservative newspapers in Wyoming detailed how Dr. Evert was killed. He does not seem to mention the fact that bear attacks occur every year in the Rocky Mountain Region and are largely a result of the bear-human interface. This interview is a blatant example of why the public questions our science. If a journalist's job is to fact check using multiple sources, then what Solotaroff does is not journalism, it is sensationalism. Soltaroff does not communicate important information to the public and policymakers; what he communicates is an opinion not fact. Lynn Moore Graduate Student Program in Ecology University of Wyoming -- ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
