Travel & Outdoors News | New West Network

One issue that supporters of delisting such as the NWF fails to admit is that the original criteria developed for delisting were politically crafted, not biologically crafted standards. Furthermore, since the development of those criteria, we have learned a great deal more about how small populations are affected by stochastic natural events, and conservation needs that are not reflected in current delisting criteria. For instance, some population ecologists believe a population of several thousand bears is necessary to ensure the long term viability of the species. These estimates were not available when the bear was listed and the criteria for delisting were developed. It seems disingenuoius for any scientist to ignore new scientific evidence that calls into question the previous delisting requirements.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Lance Craighead, the habitat security for bears in the GYE continues to decline as new developments shrink overall available habitat. Plus many of the major food resources available to bears are themselves in jeopardy (i.e. whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, etc.) and it seems unreasonable to ignore these downward trends.

All of these suggest that delisting would be unwise at this point in time.

I think we have to look at soem pretty clear facts Wyoming has right at a half million residents TOTAL scattered across the state. The probablity of this state ever becoming so populated that the bear habitat disappears is extremely remote. Half of the land is public land that will never be build on. I know there are supposed to be some sales of small isolated parcels to smooth out boundries, etc, but they shouls not make an impact on an area that has as much public land as this area.
I think it would be counter productive to force management of the bears on a possible worst case scenario, that maybe might happen. It would make as much sense to destroy all of them becasue potentially someday they might possibly kill a whole lot of people. Both would be real dumb.
The bears will continue to be overseen by competent bear biologists, not just thrown to the winds.

Indians say Bear very Sacred animal.. what would Will Rodgers do?
He tell ya, leave them their critters ALONE!!

Now, anyone have any doubt that the issue of delisting is POLITICAL any more?
I mean, the Union of Concerned Scientists is an outfit formed in the 1960's as an anti-nuke group. They are not "straight" science. Concerned, maybe, but objective, no.
And SCB? Nothing more than a way to tart up Dave Foreman's "wildlands vision" and Arne Naess's "deep ecology" with peer review from a peerage no less idelogically tainted than a bunch of stoned EFer's praising each other's "campfire poems."
As for Sterling, he makes a fairly decent case, but this is the guy who wanted prairie dogs listed. I think the reason some in the environmentalist-biologist ranks are making nice now is the realization that if they don't, ESA reform might be a de-facto repeal.
The fact is, grizzly bears are no longer endangered in Yellowstone and it is only the bear dump fiasco that dented that population so badly in the first place.
Further, all this "stochastic" stuff is hooey. We're humans, right? We have the ability to manage wildlife. Have a genetic problem? Yo, Aerospatiale? A few helicopters across the gap every few years is far more rational than zillions for highway overpasses and enormous set-asides and THOSE lost opportunity costs.
Finally, I just wanted to remind all these fancy "scientists" about why science is a respected profession...a status being placed at big-time risk by the foolishness of political hacks with PhDs.
Like it or not, the stark fact is that our world's greatest scientific and research heroes are those who left humanity better off. Those who fundamentally improved the human condition are lionized by those of us who, darn it, think people are important.
And I bet those scientists who honestly try to make this circus work for both bears and people, they'll be heroes, too. The rest, the "Bears First! crowd? Um, who was that?

I am curious as to what the funding scenario will look like from the time of delisting to say 10 years out. Who pays? If the states are responsible, where will the funding come from? Will it be enough and stable?

That has long been a big concern of mine. Not only will we be paying for themanagement of the grizzlies, today the news reports mention the Ed Bangs is stating it is time for the 3 states to take over the cost of managing the wolves. He feels they cost too much for the feds and he'd like to be able to move on to more species.
Just what we need! Somebody bring in something else for a half a million people to support for the entertainment of city folks.

There are diatribes after diatribes about how the Feds keep proposing to foist the costs of endangered species recovery onto the states. How many readers realize that around 75% of our state fish and wildlife management dollars actually come from the feds? That's right, state monies only cover about 25% of the costs of fish and wildlife management. The federal dollars come from federal excise taxes on sporting gear in the form of DJ, PR and WP grants to the states. When griz and wolves are managed by the state, they'll be managed with largely federal dollars!

This has been discussed on many chat lines. Wyoming has for years used the revenue from hunting and fishing licenses to support the management of wildlife in the state. The federal money that comes in is from a tax charged by the feds on hunting and fishing equipment, including guns, and ammunition. Check it out.
This year for the first time Wyoming has asked the state for additional money to manage wildlife, with the cost for grizzlies alone approaching a million per year.

Mr. Schneider,

Here's more grist for your mill on the grizzly delisting issue. To receive the diagram that goes with the Recovery Criteria news release, send me your email address.

Steve Stringham



Press Release
WildWatch Consulting
39200 Alma Ave. - Soldotna, AK 99669
907/260-9059



ARE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY CRITERIA LEGAL?

Although the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) makes much of their claim that all Recovery targets have been met [blithely ignoring excessive mortality during 2004 and 2005], a deeper issue is whether actually meeting those criteria would fulfill requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Ever since the criteria were first proposed, many years ago, they have been heavily criticized. Not only has it been argued that the “bars were set too low,” but they may not even be the right bars. Their selection seems to have been determined more by bureaucratic convenience than by the realities of law or of bear biology and ecology.

According to the ESA, Recovery has not been achieved until a species is no longer at risk of Endangerment (inviability) over the foreseeable future. The ESA doesn’t specify how low that risk must be. Yet, it may be relevant to note that, when assessing viability itself (risk of extinction) conventional ceilings range from 1%-5% risk over the next century (3-4 ursid lifetimes) or over the next X centuries. Hence, an appropriate ceiling on endangerment risk might conceivably be as low as 1%-5% over X centuries. At the opposite extreme, it would be hard to justify less than a 50:50 chance of sustaining viability long-term.

In any event, FWS has never committed to any ceilings on risks of endangerment or extinction. Although FWS refers to the low extinction risks calculated by Dr. Mark Boyce, FWS neglects to inform the public that “predictions” from those models are wildly unreliable. If those models were applied to grizzly populations existing 200 years ago, they would “predict” that most or all those populations would still exist, whereas in reality nearly all are extinct. Models that lack 20:20 hindsight can’t be trusted to have reliable foresight. As Boyce himself warned, derivation of even ballpark-reliable risk estimates requires that the models take into account
(a) genetic impoverishment of the population [due to inbreeding, genetic drift, etc.] and
(b) habitat degradation [e.g., increased human impacts after delisting]. Other biologists estimate that grizzlies would have to saturate all available habitat within the Yellowstone Ecosystem to achieve even minimum viability (e.g., 1000 bears).

Reliable risk assessments also need to address ursid population dynamics in a more realistic fashion, based on the ways that vital rates fluctuate in response to habitat conditions and population density. Yet, FWS instead bases its estimations of population welfare over the next decade on mean values and statistical variances that are assumed to remain stable over that time, rather than being depressed by any increase in human impacts after delisting.

According to the ESA, risk should be assessed according to five factors: “(a) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of [the species’] habitat or range; (b) over-utilization [of the species] for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms [other than the ESA]; or (e) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.”

Despite all the nebulous verbiage from the FWS about protecting sufficient habitat to sustain a robustly viable population, it has yet to identify the minimum number of bears and habitat conditions necessary to achieve that.

When everything is taken into account, Threatened status is analogous to being terribly ill. Recovery isn’t just a matter of getting well enough to get out of bed and walk around the house. It means being able to go back to work and face life’s other challenges without relapsing. Likewise, the grizzly won’t be truly Recovered until it can withstand all foreseeable impacts of hunting and habitat degradation without relapse.

Unless and until FWS can demonstrate that risk of relapse – likelihood of endangerment – would be minimal even after delisting, what relevance is there to meeting its arbitrary Recovery Criteria? Are those Criteria even legal?


Stephen F. Stringham, PhD
President








HOW MANY YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLIES?

One of the many reasons that my colleagues and I are skeptical about Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly population are doubts about size and growth of the population. If one accepts the Fish & Wildlife Service census technique based on counts of females with infant cubs each summer, then the population had reached a size of 500-600 bears by 2004, then suddenly dropped to around 350- 400 bears in 2005 –– a fact they have been noticeably lax about publicizing.

Whereas FWS and the IGBST might attribute that drop to sampling error or to a temporary decline in cub production (down to 29 -31 litters in 2005), skeptics wonder whether it instead signals the beginning of a persistent population decline due to progressive habitat degradation. That issue can be resolved only by continued monitoring of the population –– a good reason to postpone any delisting decision for a year or two.

There is also reason to question validity of the females-with-infant-cub family census technique. Censussing any bear population is difficult. Only a small fraction of the animals can be sighted during any given count. So censusses depend on finding a reliable way of extrapolating from the number seen to the total number present. The earliest method was the so-called Lincoln index, where X animals were captured briefly and marked with ear tags or collars so that they could be recognized if seen again. Then they were released back into the population. Thereafter, if 10% of all sightings were of marked individuals, then it was assumed that the X marked animals constituted 10% of the whole population. That is, total size was 10X.

Although that method has numerous flaws, various ways of compensating for the flaws have been invented. One of the most important innovations has been recognition that the more thorough a census becomes, the less likely you are to see new animals; so there should be a progressive decline in ratio of individuals seen only once vs. the number seen at least twice. That ratio can thus be used as an index of the total proportion seen (cenussing efficacy). Mark Boyce and Kim Keating have done much to refine this latter approach for Yellowstone grizzlies. Indeed, current census figures are based on Keating’’s approach.

Keating did not test validity of his method on any real-world population of bears or any other creature. Rather, he relied on computer simulation. Unfortunately, the assumptions underlying his tests were critically unrealistic. When I used more realistic assumptions, the method failed, generating serious errors. Let me explain:

Censussing efficacy is governed by two things: the ability to discriminate between different bears, and the ability to sight bears in the first place. When the bears seen have clearly identifiable markers such as ear tags or collars, there is little chance of mistaking one bear for another. However, when few bears are marked, and most identifications are based on appearance (e.g., fur color, body size and shape, number of cubs) and on location, there is much greater latitude for error. Just mistaking one or two duplicate sightings of a bear as being new sightings of additional bears can lead to serious over-estimation of population size. In the terminology of population biologists, such great vulnerability to error is known as "hypersensitivity."

Those are precisely the challenges faced by biologists studying Yellowstone grizzlies.

Indeed, uncertainty over identifying unique vs. duplicate sightings is presumably why different IGBST reports cite different numbers for counts of sow-cub families for some years.

The other component of efficacy is sightability. Over the past few decades, the amount of time spent searching for bears from aircraft has increased. There has also been an increase in the number of sites where sow-cub families feed on army cutworm moths –– sites where bears are far harder to overlook than when they are in forest. Even if the total number of families present had remained constant, greater search effort and greater visibility could have led to an increase in the number counted. Also noteworthy is that counts were especially low in 1993, when mountain snows remained throughout the summer, denying grizzlies access to moth sites. Contrary to claims by FWS and IGBST, there is no evidence that the Keating method compensated for low sightability that year.

Indeed, when my own calculations simulated annual variation in sightability, I found that Keating’’s method did almost nothing to compensate for efficacy error. *

Not only don’’t the methods of Boyce or Keating yield reliable estimates of population size during any given year, but they don’’t yield reliable estimates of how much size varies from year to year or how fast and far the population has grown.

Put differently: we not only don’’t know how close the population is to minimum viable size, but we don’’t really know how the population has responded to past variation in habitat, whether due to climatic change or human impacts. That provides us little basis for predicting how the population is likely to fare against future changes and impacts.

Although some scientists argue that such predictions aren’’t necessary, they overlook the legal issue that such prediction is required by the Endangered Species Act. By definition, no population has recovered until it is no longer likely to become endangered over the foreseeable future. No species can appropriately be delisted until the FWS can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the species is viable and will remain viable in perpetuity even after loss of protection under the ESA

Unreliable censusses cannot yield reliable predictions of future viability.

_________________________________

The simplest way to test validity of Keating's method through simulations is to assume that population size is stable over many years (e.g., 10 or 50 years), but let the number of bears counted vary randomly around that size.

Then, to apply Keating's correction factor,

a. Use the average ratio of unique to duplicate sightings he reported for Yellowstone bears;

b. Or make the rate of duplicate counts rise as sightings rise.

If Keating's method works, it should show that population size remains stable despite variation in number of bears counted.

However, in all cases I tested, the figures obtained using Keating’’s method closely tracked the number counted; his method did almost nothing to compensate for efficacy error.

This isn't to suggest that his method -- or Boyce's -- is useless. No, they are important innovations. But they still need work. Back to the drawing board.

Stephen F. Stringham, PhD
President, WildWatch Consulting
Director, Bear Communication & Coexistence Research Program

Do these jerks really think anyone would buy from them when they invade sites like this?

I am not a scientist nor am I a resident like my good friend, Marion. Hopefully, neither criteria are required to make comment. If I am fortunate, twice a year I have the opportunity to travel 1300 miles (each way) in an effort to capture these magnificent creatures with my camera lens.

There does not appear to be much disagreement as to whether we should expand the grizzly numbers. It seems that in an academic vacuum, virtually everyone agrees that there ought to be more bears. The difficulties appear to come when (and if) grizzlies expand to the point where their encounters with humans are likely to lead to tragic results. Virtually all would agree that no one should ever have to run a substantial risk that their children will be attacked by wild animals whether they are bears, wolves or mountain lions. However, to me, the operative word is "substantial".

If my memory serves me correctly, Yellowstone averages 2.5-3.0 million visitors per year. The last grizzly bear fatality in the Park occurred in 1984 when a young lady from Switzerland was attacked at night by what was probably a sub-adult grizzly in the White Lake area. She was camping alone. What that means is that between 55-66 million people have visited Yellowstone in the last 22 years and not one of them has been killed by a grizzly. To me, this is a very compelling statistic. To me, it is proof that humans can co-exist in areas having very dense populations of grizzlies as long as people are willing to modify certain behaviors and exercise a miminal degree of common sense.

Obviously, Yellowstone has considerably more resources than the surrounding areas. Yellowstone has a considerable amount of law enforcement officers. Yellowstone also has the ability to close off certain areas at certain times of the year in order to minimize the prospects of unpleasant bear/human encounters. Obviously, given the lack of fatalities in the most recent two decades, the Park Service has managed this tightrope magnificently.

As far as I have been able to tell, though, the surrounding areas do not have a notable grizzly problem, either. I have heard of grizzlies on the golf course in Cody. I know of the grizzly which was killing cattle in Meeteetse but these seem to be the exceptions, not the rule. I have herd of no recent attacks, let alone fatalities in Cody, Meeteetse, West Yellowstone, Gardiner or the Shoshone National Forest. In fact, it is becoming a more and more rare event that I spot a grizzly in the Shoshone National Forest let alone have the opportunity to take a good picture of one.

There are a couple of expressions that are popular in my part of the country. One is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Another is to "Err on the side of caution". When combined with the recent history of bear/human encounters, both phrases would suggest to me that de-listing is not a good idea. If the grizzlies have saturated the existing Yellowstone eco-system, logic dictates that the number of unpleasant bear/ human encounters would increase. Apparently, this has not taken place. Logic also suggests that isolating populations of grizzlies in smaller areas makes them vulnerable to catastrophic events such as new strains of viruses or bacteria. Grizzlies, which have incredibly slow reproductive rates, would appear to be a particularly vulnerable species. To me this suggests expanding the range of the grizzly rather than limiting its numbers would be the better solution.

If a solution could be found that allowed the grizzlies to expand while minimizing impact on humans then it would seem that, perhaps, everyone would benefit. I have long thought that the Bighorn Mountains would be ideal grizzly habitat. I also know that the land between Cody and the Bighorns is virtually devoid of any significant human population. My hope is that this might present a solution from a scientific point of view. However, the politics of the grizzly has always brought about a wider divergence of opinion than the science of the grizzly. I was wondering, though, if the people who had a scientific background could comment on the possibility of opening a corridor in the unpopulated lands between Yellowstone and the Bighorns. If political obstacles could be overcome, is there enough food and water to support the grizzlies traveling between the mountain ranges?

I would genuinely be interested in comment from the people with a scientific background.

Hey, hey, Jeff, what do you mean devoid of significant population? There are alot of us between Cody and the Big Horns, and we think we're significant.
I know there was at least one griz on North Fork that was seen a lot early on, I missed it though. They moved 4 I think from a ranch out South Fork at one time last afall. They had joined the cows on the feed lines.
I do think caution is important. The state will have to pay for all management of the grizzlies as well as the wolves, I'd like to give us some time to see just how expensive that is going to be. Certainly the feds are not going to give us an indication of the true costs of wolf management. There are only about a half million people in the entire state to have to share that burden themselves. I think taking on the expansion of grizzly territory would be very premature. The food they would take would be in large part sheep and cows, I'm afraid.
There isn't much doubt about the wolves hitting the Big Horns, they are already on the south end. We have a wonderful moose population, I would really hate to see them go the way they have in Yellowstone and the Tetons.
As you know I don't have a scientific back ground in anything but medicine.