Bear Matters BC

Bears inhabit 48% more land than they did in 1975
By MIKE STARK
Of The Gazette Staff

A year ago today, government officials gathered on a stage in Washington, D.C., to say it’s finally time to remove endangered species protections from grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding areas.

Since then, more than 213,000 people - from scientists and schoolchildren to environmentalists and livestock groups - have registered their opinion of the idea.

Sometime in the first half of 2007, the decision is expected to become final.

But that won’t be the end of the story for managing the estimated 600 grizzlies in and around Yellowstone. Instead, it will simply open the next chapter in the bears’ long road to recovery, one that likely will include lawsuits, discussions of state-run grizzly hunts, intensified monitoring and state agencies deciding how the bruins should be managed.

“Delisting does not mean walking away from the bears,” Chris Servheen, grizzly recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said Tuesday.

The Yellowstone grizzly was placed on the endangered species list in 1975, when 220 to 320 roamed the area, according to government estimates.

New rules to protect bears and their habitat allowed the population to slowly recover.

Since the mid-1990s, the population has grown by 4 to 7 percent annually, according to government estimates. The best, most protected habitat inside Yellowstone is basically full, and bears have been moving for years outside the park, where they’re more likely to run into conflicts.

But with grizzlies occupying 48 percent more land than in 1975 and the population doing well, federal officials decided it was time to move them off the endangered species list and hand management over to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

Since that announcement a year ago, public hearings and meetings have been held in all three states and comments have poured in on the government’s draft plan.

Servheen said federal officials are sifting through the comments - more than 90 percent were form letters - and looking for ways to tweak the proposal before it’s finalized.

“We’ll definitely make some changes to the proposal,” Servheen said. “We want to make sure it’s right.”

Critics of delisting said the move is premature and that there are still too many uncertainties facing the Yellowstone grizzly population, including declines in key food sources and increasing development on the park’s fringes.

Louisa Willcox, with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s office in Livingston, said she reviewed the comments and found a vast majority opposed delisting. The letter writers came from a wide spectrum of backgrounds with a range of different concerns, she said.

Some invoked religion or grizzlies’ iconic status, while others presented detailed scientific concerns, she said.

“That says a lot about the need for caution in the face of so many uncertainties for an animal that has nowhere else to go,” Willcox said.

One of the biggest worries is the health of whitebark pine trees, which provide a fatty nut that Yellowstone bears rely on. Many of the trees have been hit hard in recent years by an outbreak of beetles and an ongoing battle with a fatal fungus.

“Yellowstone Park is just a grim story when it comes to whitebark pine,” Willcox said. “And this summer was no exception.”

Some of the criticism has also focused on how much land grizzlies will be allowed to occupy. Environmentalists and others say the area in the government plan is too restrictive, keeping bears from roaming in prime habitat and providing too little room for grizzlies to spill into in the case of a disease outbreak or food shortage.

Sterling Miller, a biologist for the National Wildlife Federation, said he continues to support the delisting proposal, adding that the bear population in and around Yellowstone is robust and an important testament to the importance of the Endangered Species Act.

“I’ve seen absolutely no information that would cause me to change my mind on that,” Miller said.

If anything, he said, monitoring and management of grizzly bears will be more intense after delisting, as bears are watched by state wildlife officials along with scientists from the federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service.

“The big lesson is that even a difficult and controversial species like the grizzly bear can be recovered,” Miller said.

Servheen said the plan will be adaptable enough to deal with problems that crop up, and government officials will have the authority to adjust mortality rates, available habitat and other factors that affect grizzlies’ lives.

“We will adapt our management as necessary to meet the needs of bears,” Servheen said.

Among other things, management of the 9,200-square-mile recovery area for Yellowstone grizzlies will mean holding the line on development on federal land. The plan uses 1998 as a benchmark year, meaning that the net number of roads, developments and livestock allotments can’t exceed the numbers from that year.

The plan also allows Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to offer grizzly bear hunts and gives more management authority to those three states.

“We’re ready to pick up the ball and run with it,” said Chris Smith, chief of staff for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “By and large, Montanans are supportive of delisting.”

Any decision to delist grizzly bears would affect only the Yellowstone population. Other populations, including those in and around Glacier National Park and in Idaho, may get more attention once the Yellowstone bears are off the list.

“We have a lot of other (grizzly) populations that need our help,” Servheen said.

Published on Wednesday, November 15, 2006