Greater Yellowstone; A Grizzly Home
By Daryl L. Hunter, Unfiltered 10-06-06
 | |
|
About 10 years, ago a grizzly sow and her three cubs were seen by Paul Bruin as he was fishing the Snake just above Deadman's Bar in Grand Teton National Park. The following day these bears were tranquilized on South Park Loop at the Bob Lucas’s Ranch. She either skirted Jackson or walked straight down the river through the property of many unsuspecting homeowner. In November, 2003 a 2-year-old female grizzly had been sleeping on people's porches and in garages for nearly a week in Driggs Idaho. 06-2004 JHMR ski patroller Kirk Speckhals was mountain biking on Togwotee Pass, north of Jackson Hole, when a grizzly attacked him, it was driven off with pepper spray thanks to fellow mountain biker Tom Foley.
Between 1994 and 1996, 182 cattle were found dead on two grazing allotments in Togwotee Pass. 3.5 calves are lost to grizzly depredation for every confirmed calf kill. These ranchers gave up their grazing allotment that made their ranch a viable business. They likely now regret getting involved with the Nature Conservancy in a partnership that preserved their ranch for green space and ranching negating their option to subdivide after losing their ability to ranch.
Delisting the Greater Yellowstone Grizzly
Due to the success of the recovery of the grizzly, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced plans to remove federal protection for Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzlies. If removed from threatened status under Endangered Species Act (ESA), Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming would assume management responsibilities from federal wildlife officials and have greater flexibility in dealing with grizzlies. When removed from the threatened species list the grizzly will still be protected within the 2.6 million acre Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Park corridor.
Population estimates in the GYE number 600 plus grizzly bears living in the GYE region, up from only 200 or 250 grizzlies in the region in 1975. The annual population growth rate over the past decade is 4 to 7 percent; the bear mortality rate is less then 4 percent of the population, a consistent net gain. Dr. Chris Servheen the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's grizzly bear recovery coordinator supports delisting, saying “all established recovery parameters have been met or exceeded. This whole thing is based on a very firm foundation of science.” Tom France, Rockies Natural Resource Center Director of the National Wildlife Federation agrees, “The Yellowstone’s grizzly population is clearly a success for the Endangered Species Act and it shows how the act can work.” Interior Secretary Gale Norton said, "A population that was once plummeting towards extinction is now recovered, these bears are now no longer endangered.”
Three other grizzly populations in other parts of the lower 48 states will continue to be protected as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Those that remain live in isolated pockets: 30 grizzlies in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem; up to 60 bears in northern Idaho's Selkirk Mountains; five to ten in the northern Cascades of Washington state. Alaskan grizzly bears, which number about 30,000, were never listed under the act.
The Grizzly Recovery Industries’ next goal
The Yellowstone Ecosystem and Montana’s Bob Marshall/Glacier National Park Wilderness Complex are home to grizzly populations considered sustainable. The next goal for many in the grizzly bear recovery field is the Selway-Bitterroot ecosystem a vast swath of bear-suitable wilderness along the Idaho/Montana border where 12 to 15 million acres of habitat currently has no grizzlies. Many wildlife advocates are pushing for establishing this third population of grizzlies in the Selway-Bitterroot ecosystem; this would create a wildlife corridor that would enable bears to move between the three ecosystems, strengthening all three populations.
After six years of negotiations, planning and study, in March 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a plan to reintroduce grizzlies to the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church wilderness areas of Idaho and Montana as a "nonessential experimental" population under the Endangered Species Act, a classification that angers environmentalists, this category first created for wolves, now for the grizzly is a special provision of the Endangered Species Act was patched onto the law in 1982 to give wildlife managers greater flexibility in dealing with problem animals.
In November 2000, in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife plan to transplant 25 grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness, Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a move which led Interior Secretary Gale Norton to halt the reintroduction effort. The reintroduction plan was contentious, and controversial, and the Gale Norton’s decision to cancel it is supported by the governors of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and a many residents of the region.
The long-range agenda behind the environmentalist’s effort to move grizzlies into the Selway- Bitterroot ecosystem is a part of a movement to develop a corridor that could link populations of bears all the way from Alaska to the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The idea has been coined Y2Y (Yukon to Yellowstone.) The Y2Y movement is 140 environmental groups who propose a series of wildlife corridors to link populations of bear, wolves, and other large predators all the way from Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming to Canada's Yukon Territory on the border of Alaska. The entire area encompasses almost 500,000 square miles. Using dedicated, animals-only overpasses and underpasses.
The Controversy Continues
Federal and state grizzly management officials agree that it is time to delist the GYE grizzly, but predictably many environmental groups are against it. Former Earth First activist Louisa Willcox believes 2,000 to 3,000 bears should live in adjacent ecosystems prior to delisting of the grizzlies of the GYE. Some admit the Yellowstone grizzlies are an ESA success story and attention should shift elsewhere; i.e., the Selway-Bitterroot; others insist delisting is premature and lacks sufficient protection for the bear. Biologists unbiased by radical environmentalism view the Endangered Species Act as "a temporary protection for species that are in peril. You save them then move onto the next project. Radical environmentalists believe that once endangered, always endangered hence never remove protection, they will always try to raise the bar, increase target numbers, and expand inclusive territory to earmark for protection hence never reaching a goal equating and acknowledging success.
Environmentalists fear that stripping the bears of federal protection could eventually, clear the way for hunting grizzlies in the region. Environmentalist’s who oppose hunting fail to realize that game populations that are managed as a hunting resource thrive as a result.
Idaho Senate Pro Tem Robert Geddes said there is no need for grizzlies in Idaho. "We have grizzly bears in Yellowstone and they are doing fine there. We have grizzly bears in Alaska. We have grizzly bears in Canada," he said. "There is a reason there are not grizzly bears here anymore, and that is because they are a threat to people."
"You stumble upon a mama grizzly and her cubs and tell me just how charismatic she is," grumbled former Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne "The idea we're supposed to be an outdoor laboratory for these large predators may be popular back East, but we don't want them. We'll ship a few of these flesh-eating carnivores to their back yards and see how they like dealing with this dangerous animal."
Even Idaho Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brady of Idaho Falls voiced his rejection much to the surprise of environmental activist Louisa Willcox. "I understand the arguments for reintroduction," Brady said, "but I guess I would say that at the moment, we've got probably all the predators we can handle."
Balance must be the goal
The Grizzly must be delisted, managed locally, and hunted as the population permits so they will learn to avoid humans. Leanne Hayne who lives 35 miles north of Choteau MT stepped out of her home to investigate her dog’s incessant barking. The Hayne house sits in a clearing to the west of the Rocky Mountain Front. As she walked out onto the back porch, Leanne saw an adult grizzly bear standing just 10 yards away. The bear didn’t charge, but it didn’t run away either. Showing no fear, it just stared at her and the barking dog. “I had shivers right here at the base of my skull move down my spine,” she says. “That’s when I realized that these huge beasts have to fear humans that maybe it’s time to reconsider a hunting season.”
We must celebrate the Grizzly recovery success by delisting it. I am thrilled that I live in close proximity to a few grizzlies, I am also glad I live on the outer most boundary of their territory. I am glad that we still have ranches to look at in our valley bottoms, I would like to see them stay in business so that these open spaces don’t become wall to wall ranchettes for urban escapees; I hope that I can continue camping in the mountains adjacent to my home absent of the paranoia I camp within Yellowstone. I hope that the front porch grizzlies of Driggs don’t expand their territory to other towns. I imagine that most people living in Dubois, Salmon, and Mackay Idaho, Missoula, Bozeman, Hamilton, and Dillon Montana aren’t thrilled to be targets of a proposed grizzly bear migration corridor.
It seems as if one grizzly bear plan is too hot, the other is too cold; we must somehow agree upon one that is just right.
Daryl L. Hunter publishes The Upper Valley Free Press
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
If you are a hunter you know that animals that are hunted fear humans, others like the ones in Yellowstone do not. There are hundreds of black bears where I live and you rarely see them because they do not want to be seen, they have lived through a few hunting seasons and wish to live through a few more.
It is healthy for humans for Grizzlies to fear them. If Grizzlies feared humans it is unlikely that they will show up on the porch for the dog food or try to hibernate in someone’s garage.
Bears (black or grizzly) are opportunistic and will go where they find food the easiest and most plentiful. In good years when berry and whitebark pine nut crops are plentiful, that's in the wilderness, far away from people. In bad years, or when they're drawn to people's homes and yards by the scent of poorly stored garbage, livestock feed, dog food on the porch, poorly cleaned (greasy) barbecues, or fruit trees, bears begin to associate people with abundant food. That can be scary for people and usually is fatal to bears.
Fortunately, wildlife agencies and conservationists are getting better at educating the public in how to make one's home and property less attractive to bears. Biologists and game wardens are also becoming skilled at using non-lethal methods to make hanging around humans a less than pleasant experience, using rubber bullets, noise-makers and Karelian bear dogs to haze bears away and educate them to associate humans with unpleasant encounters.
The key is consistency and to get bears adversely conditioned young, as soon as they show up around people. If you can do that, they stay away from people and you don't have to resort to killing or hunting bears to "teach them a lesson." It is utter nonsense (and terribly macho) to assume that bears learn adverse conditioning ONLY by being hunted and killed.
As Doug Peacock said, "death is a poor learning experience." I am hopeful that Daryl and Marion can demonstrate their capacity to learn, by doing some basic homework and realize there are ways to educate bears into avoiding people, without blasting them to smithereens.
Sooner or later grizzlies will have to be controlled, that is a fact of life that even environmentalists will have to face.
Grizzlies are all ready filling the available habitat and they have to try to find new places to put them, which may or may not work. I must admit to some confusion as to why bird seed or grain attracts bears and back country camper cooking supper supposedly do not. And for that matter I have seen barbeque grills on porches of homes in Mammoth, are they just so used to them, that it is not a problem?
All of that being said, yes I do believe that everyone in grizzly country must do all possible to prevent conflicts, the problem occurs when they spread into country not known or expected to be grizzly country, and that is happening more and more.
I think it is way past time to eliminate overnight backcountry camping in grizzly territory, some of those bears are being pushed oout of the areas that should be set aside for them alone. That seems just as important a step as all of the others.
As grizzlies extend into "new" territory, the proper assumption to make is that bears are in the area and to plan and act accordingly. Bears are omniverous, so yes, they are attracted by bird seed and grain for livestock. As for the barbeque grills at Mammoth, I'll wager that they're cleaned after every use, so they are not a bear attractant.
Re: the idea that grizzlies must be "controlled." That idea is very old--that Man has dominion over Nature. Another way of looking at it is that Man and Bear are both part of Nature, and since Man is infinitely more adaptable to change than Bears, the choice is rather stark: Man either learns to coexist with Bears, or we'll ultimately have no bears. Bears are more limited in adaptability, but with our help, they can learn to avoid people.
Numbers do have to be controlled or problems can be so severe that ther is a backlash. Even country folk live in the 21st century just like you do, and you surely would not suggest moving grizzlies into Casper would you, or for that matter Cody? And they are very close to Cody now.
Yellowstone's Bear Management Areas work nicely to give bears the space they need at critical times of the year. CSKT does the same thing in the Mission Mtn. Tribal Wilderness. I am one backcountry camper who is perfectly content to stay out of BMAs when required to do so -- for the bears' well-being as well as my own.
I feel like we need to explore all options in working with grizzlies. I honestly do not see how having thusands of people invading the back country every year can help but impact the bears as much if not more than people who have homes on the edges and in some cases in areas where the bears are moving in. Everyone has an impact on every bit of the country they touch, some good and some bad for each of us.
The backpackers provide a steady stream of moving wandering humans disturbing everything, where as homes are stationary and more or less predictable. Yet it is the ranchers and homeowners that are restricted more and more , but no one even is willing to look at the effect of the back country users. It isn't like there is no where else to backpack except the limited grizzly country.
Radical environmentalists have no concept reasonable compromise of their preconceived ideas and goals, that is why they alienate those on the margin as well as those well into the opposition. A conservative like myself that is a wildlife and nature photographer that is thrilled with the sight of a Grizzly or Wolf in Yellowstone, and are glad that they are there, upon recognizing the radical agenda of the environmentalists starts reevaluating previous support of limited populations for targeted areas.
Twice I have seen Grizzlies in places where none are supposed to be. Outside of the areas where you expect them you often don’t have pepper spray or 44 magnum, the most recent time, this July, I had my nine year old with me 8 miles from the trailhead. In Yellowstone I carry pepper spray, in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness, Teton Wilderness and the Gros Ventre Wilderness I carry a 44 magnum. Until now I didn’t have to take anything into the Snake River Range and it was nice to be able to leave those items at home.
I used to advocate for more wilderness “Does Wilderness Have A Value Of It's Own - 1999 “ but radical environmentalist policy alienated me and I shifted my activism elsewhere. They sure know how to make enemies where there previously weren’t any.
K. Stachowski, the region of John and Leanne Hayne's 3,000 acre ranch wasn't Grizzly country when they were born there, it expanded there only recently.
Marion, it’s October 10, do you suppose that Brodie has gotten his elk yet? :)
Maybe Brodie will tell us when he gets his elk, suppose?
It is interesting that because I feel humans (even the country folks out here) have rights, I am labeled a grizzly hater. I have no idea how much time and money I have spent over the years to try to see grizzlies, including one trip to Katmai NP, but lots, and I will continue as long as I am able. I prefer to see them in places other than towns or ranches though. They are jsut a few miles out of Cody now, and 2 schools in Park county have had to put up fences to keep griz out of school yards.
Extreme ideologues, right or left, are firmly dug in to their respective positions and will not be budged. Refute one error and they'll pop up with another. My hope is in the great middle ground, where people are still capable of absorbing new information and exercising rational, critical thought. That's why it is always worth knocking down gross exaggerations, over simplifications and outright myths.
You can find good, solid advice on how humans can avoid conflicts with bears of all species at this link: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=169928
I'm sure many other state wildlife agencies offer similar guidance to the public.
There are not "problem bears." But there are bears that have been acclimated to human food, usually in the form of garbage carelessly left out.
Brodie, do you disagree with those who want all trapping stopped in case a wolf or lynx might be caught? Who do you consider extremeists those who want more and more predators, or those who want to keep their kids, livestock, and pets safe? Does anyone really have the right to say that they want this or that, of course not where they will be impacted, but someone has to sacrifice....someone else that is? Radical idea or not, I have a real problem taking someone else's rights away to give you or anyone else pleasure.
You state in your conclusion that, " I am glad that we still have ranches to look at in our valley bottoms, I would like to see them stay in business so that these open spaces don’t become wall to wall ranchettes for urban escapees;".
It seems a bit narrow to blame the failure of ranch operations on the Grizzly Bear. You may want to dive into further research on this topic pontentially emerging with a broader view of the beef and lamb industry. There is much more pressure in the business world v. the pressure of the Griz. Try Fast Food Nation and similar material for a broader view. dave
That I do realize, that is why we must reduce pressure on them where ever we can, wolves, public grazing access, and grizzlies just to name a few. They have an uphill battle and unless we want to suburbanize our valleys where ever we can.