WILD BILL
Illegal Killing Threatens Hunting
By Bill Schneider, 11-10-05
A few centuries ago, back in the mid-1770s, Benjamin Franklin gave us this little bit of wisdom: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But we sure haven’t listened. Recently added to the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, the oft-used adage is defined as “a little precaution before a crisis is preferable to a lot of fixing up afterward.� When applied to problem of illegal killing of grizzly bears, this definition seems like a gigantic understatement—so bad, in fact, that hunters don’t even want to know about the “pound of cure.�
A few decades ago, back in 1975, the grizzly bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Since then, the same man, Chris Servheen of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has been in charge of the grizzly bear recovery program.
A few weeks ago, back on September 15 before big game seasons began, I wrote a column called Hunters Beware. The basic purpose was to emphasize how hunters can minimize illegal and accidental killings of grizzly bears—and why it matters. Obviously, a few people who should have read it (or a multitude of similar material sent out by wildlife agencies) did not because illegal killing has skyrocketed.
A few days ago, back on November 4 at a meeting in Kalispell, Servheen told a group of bear experts that despite increased educational and enforcement efforts, illegal killing is still “the biggest problem� and mortality keeps going up. “We are deeply concerned,� Servheen said. This means, in essence, that illegal killings could prevent recovery and keep the big bear on the threatened species list for a long time, but for hunters, it could get worse, much worse.
So far in 2005, the so-called Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (Glacier Park, the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex and surrounding lands) has had 11 illegal kills, which are grizzlies mistaken for black bears or simply shot by poachers, plus one bear killed in “self-defense.�
Here’s a good (bad?) example. Up in the Scapegoat Wilderness north of Lincoln, a hunter killed a mule deer and left the carcass out overnight. When the hunter and his guide went back the next day, they found a grizzly had claimed it. They left the scene, which precisely what they were supposed to do, but then, unbelievably, they went back again the following day. The grizzly charged them, and they shot it.
At this point in time, this incident is, officially, called “self-defense,� but this could change because game warden Tom Flowers tells me this killing is under “active investigation.� This was a guided hunt, so an outfitter was involved, and outfitters are supposed to be more informed on bear awareness than their clients.
Servheen asks the obvious question: �Why were they back in there if they knew there was a bear on this kill? They had no business being there because they knew this bear was in possession of a carcass.�
Flowers agrees. “If a carcass is claimed by a bear, we advocate not going back into the area, and we strongly recommend that hunters get out their animal the same day instead of leaving them overnight.�
Servheen also notes that most illegal mortality occurs near roads, re-emphasizing the fact that building more roads into backcountry makes grizzly bear recovery more difficult. We only know about a small percentage of illegal kills, he reports, but we know more bears die illegally in roaded areas than in the backcountry.
Servheen said his office would soon announce a substantial increase in the rewards available for people who provide information leading to the arrest of those responsible for illegal grizzly kills.
Okay, now for why all this really matters. Obviously, illegal kills, almost all of which are preventable, stifles recovery efforts (especially when females are killed) and diminishes any possibility of ever seeing the return of legal hunting seasons for grizzly bears, but there is an even deeper downside. Even though agencies require them to take a identification test, black bear hunters continue to mistake grizzlies for black bears. This clearly has to stop. If it doesn’t, it could mean the end of black bear hunting in habitat occupied by grizzlies, which is much of western Montana, northwestern Wyoming, and northern Idaho. An environmental group could file a lawsuit claiming black bear hunting threatens the already officially threatened grizzly bear, and in the face of these clearly incriminating statistics, agencies might have no choice but to end the hunting of black bears. And this “cure� could extend to deer and elk hunting!
It’s no secret that we live in a litigious society. So Ben’s “pound of cure� could be a lawsuit filed by an animal rights group claiming all big game hunting in grizzly country violates the Endangered Species Act, because it directly and indirectly leads to increased grizzly mortality. This would make a few headlines, wouldn’t it?
I know for a fact that environmental groups have discussed this option, but the major greens consider it too risky because of the predictable political backlash. However, among the hundreds of environmental and animal rights groups, big and small, there’s much disagreement on strategy. One maverick group could break ranks, drag big game hunting into court, and then what would happen? Nobody knows this answer, of course, but I do know that whatever does happen would make an “ounce of prevention� seem like an extremely attractive option for hunters.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
But as Bill says here, the high illegal mortality stands as a warning of what would happen should the States, especially the State of Wyoming, succeed in pushing through delisting and the Conservation Srategy, in conjunction with State plans, goes into effect. Wyoming has already promised "low densities" of bears in areas where the bear is considered "socially unacceptable;" that term is defined by a vocal minority of anti bear folks, led by various county commissions. When you combine that promise of deliberate low densities in manhy areas of Wyoming, with continued high mortalities in hunting season in the Primary Conservation Area, where bears are supposed to come first under the Conservation Strategy, that doesn't speak well for the future of the bear or of hunting.
If hunters aren't to be further restricted in bear country, they really need to clean up their act and there needs to be a much greater enforcement presence in these areas, such as in the Thorofare just south of the Yellowstone Park boundary, where bears are consistently killed. Otherwise, as Bill says, some animal rights group is going to go after elk season. And quite frankly, in western Wyoming we already have too many elk--wolves aren't doing a very good job of forcing them into the predator pit. No hunting of elk would have seious population implications.
What nobody wants to talk about is the fact that ANY four legged animal that is deemed a "threat" to livestock is a potential target.
Was the purpose perhaps a disguised attempt to whip up a new batch of concern with the greens to enlist more support of opposition to delisting Ol' Ephram from the Fed's T&E;list? That's how it appears to me.
There was no information in the article on the trend of human caused grizz mortality. That's probably because it hasn't been increasing over the long run. The feds have a certain amount of human caused mortality built into their population model. That is a factor used in the overall prediction of the vialbility of the grizz's viability. There has been no long term trend increase in human caused mortality. The long term trend indicates that the grizz population has steadily increased at present human caused mortality rates and that the present population will continue to be viable at the present rate.
Charlie Martini
If bears are critically endangered, how can it be legal to hunt them?
Any insight into this matter would be greatly appreciated.
~M.O.
The basic premise of your question is incorrect. The grizzly bear is not "critidally endangered." It's on the feds Threatened list mostly for political reasons, which is a common theme allowed by the endangered species act. It never has been listed as Endangered in the US. There are many, many thousands of grizzly bears in Alaska and Canada.
The population in the greater Yellowstone area is close what is was before 1800. The number of bears there now is very near to the area's carrying capacity for the grizz, especially now that wolves have been re-introduced there. Now that the grizzly bear population has filled the carrying capacity of the greater Yellowstone area, new bears in the population will tend to move out into areas populated by humans and the number of bear/human conflicts will increase. It's appropriate that the bear population be kept at a sustainable level through controlled and regulated hunting to keep the conflicts to a minimum.