Greater Yellowstone; A Grizzly Home
By Daryl L. Hunter, New West Unfiltered 10-06-06
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 [End of article]
Excellent article. Last year Wilcox tried to make the case that the population of grizzlies had plummeted because they didn't count as many sows with cubs of the year. Then of course this year when there were a lot of babies, she only shut up about the drop, she evidently didn't think the population had suddenly shot up. Next year of course there will probably be fewer COYs because so many will have yearlings with them. It never occurs to them that this is nature.
Comment By Daryl L. Hunter, 10-07-06When you want a Grizzly in every backyard from Santa Fe to Barrow, as do the radicals of the Grizzly recovery movement, it makes it impossible to be happy with such a successful recovery of the Grizzly in the Greater Yellowstone Region.
Comment By Dave Smith, 10-09-06If a rancher or ranchette owner leaves dog food out on the porch, then shoots and kills an adult male grizzly feeding on the dog food, how will that teach the bear to fear humans? After all, the bear is dead. The dead bear isn't going to go out and tell its bear buddies to stay away from humans, because, well, it's dead. As Doug Peacock has noted, "death is a poor learning experience."
Comment By Marion, 10-09-06Mr. Smith, could you please provide a link to the last grizzly killed while eating dog food on a porch? I think it might prove informative.
Comment By Nick Domitrovich, 10-09-06I used to work in a field where bear/human conflicts and bear roadway mortality was a constant concern, and I can honestly say that the vast majority of the conflicts I encountered were caused by human negligence. I'm not arguing for a "Grizzly in every backyard," but I sure do know some ways to help prevent one from ever showing up in yours.
Comment By Daryl L. Hunter, 10-09-06Dave Smith,
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.
I'm afraid that Daryl and Marion have overly simplified the reality of human-bear conflicts. Deer are hunted, but that doesn't stop them from entering yards, towns and even cities when they're looking for food -- indeed are fed by homeowners.
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.
Brodie, I have a hard time being impressed by the opinions of an aged Earth First activist. Remember they thought it was reasonable and responsible to spike trees to get their own way.
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.
It really isn't necessary to eliminate overnight backcountry camping in grizzly territory, as graduates and instructors of National Outdoor Leadership School understand, or as saavy outfitters understand. It is entirely possible to coexist with bears, given adequate food storage, food preparation and washing up steps, not to mention portable electric fences. Poor camping practices attract bears.
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.
I have never heard of a back country camper who was willing to even consider studying the effect of back country camping in grizzly country on the bears. Nor are they considering the conditioning effect of being exposed to outdoor cooking in their territory, or for that matter the conditioning effect of having humans waste all over the place even after the humans move on. For that matter the possibil;ity of disease transmission form human to bear should be considered. That is apart from the fact that the bears need to have space not invaded by humans at all.
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.
Leanne Hayne sets her house down in grizzly country near the Rocky Mtn. Front and then acts surprised when a curious bear comes to call? She's the problem, not the bear.
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.
Come on now, Brodie and K. Stachowski, don't be naive about engaging Marion here. She doesn't give hoot about bear survival or your survival; she has a purely political agenda. She wants to engage you in the debate; stand the argument on its head; and then, as soon as she gets you to agree that there is a need to give the bears some space and stay out of BMAs and the backcountry at various times, she will do her double-reverse, turn on you, and declare that conservationists "secretly" just want to keep people out of the parks and prevent them from using the resource. As I have said before, don't touch that thing; it's dirty. You might as well be exchanging e-mails with Mark Foley.
Comment By Marion, 10-10-06I will leave the dirty talk to "mike", that seems to be his area of expertise.
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.
Marion,
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? :)
I am very concerned about the left idea that everyone must follow their dictates. There is no discussion allowed, and no one is to have any say at all. Loss of private property rights is my biggest concern, that has always been one of the big things that separate us from other countries, and why they want to erode that I can't imagine. I speculate that it may be a feeling that ranchers in particular are not entitled to have more land than environmentalists do and they will do everything in their power to take it away and give it to those who "deserve" it...themselves.
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.
Mike: I can understand your frustration about engaging with ideologues, because they rarely respond to factual, balanced, nuanced information with a "Gee, I never thought about it that way," or "I didn't know that. Thanks for the information."
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.
All along the Montana Front Range grizzlies have been appearing. In fact, Choteau has had griz visitors right in the middle of town. They have also been spotted near the communities of Bynum and Dupuyer. Across the mountains Whitefish has had griz come to visit too. During the summers they are occasionally seen on the slopes of the Big Mountain ski area.
Comment By Alan Gregory, 10-11-06Marion et al,
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.
Alan, Do you live in grizzly country or potential grizzly country? Even if you don't do you practice all of the things that you feel other people should do? Just in case? I live a hundred miles east of Yellowstone, does that give you the right to put griz or wolves over here so you can see them as you drive thru, and make me responsible for their well being? Should I be required to buy special garbage containers etc in case the bears move over here? You have to use a little bit of common sense. It is very easy to make rules for others to live by as long as you yourself don't have to abide by them.
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.
Marion, I grew up in Pocatello and live in the East after 26 years in the Air Force. But that is beside the point. My intent in posting the information from the Pennsylvania Game Commission was quite simple: to give folks who do live in bear country some ideas on how to avoid conflicts with the animals. You, however, saw some underground motive to my posting. The suggestions from the Pennsylvania Game Commission are just that. You, on the other hand, have labeled them rules. I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. Where I live has nothing to do with my posting. Geez, one cannot even share some helpful information on this blog without you seeing some sort of conspiracy in action. Lighten up, Marion.
Comment By Marion, 10-11-06The thing is Alan, what will work for dealing with black bears in Pennsylvania are not real helpful for grizzlies in Wyoming. So much of the whole thing is political. Obviously there is a limit on how many grizzlies an area can hold without problems. Believe me, I am not saying we need to get rid of grizzlies, I'm saying common sense has to rule. You must remember this is an area where kids still do outside chores, often alone, and environmentalists are pushing for more and more and more predators. This three state area is the only place outside of Alaska that has all 5 major predators, lions, black bears, grizzly bears, wolves, and coyotes. We cannot fulfill eveyone's fantasies.
Comment By Alan, 10-11-06Marion, Marion, Marion, I know that. I am not stupid. I am a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel. I repeat. All I did was post a link to a helpful Web page. If you do not like that, then don't read it.
Comment By Marion, 10-11-06Alan, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, sorry. I think we are talking about very different things.
Comment By Dave Bell, 10-15-06Daryl,
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
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.
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! KLq7wmkSZ2V
Comment By pbwxcjjsqy, 1-23-07<a >ujhmrqr</a>
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/greater_yellowstone_a_grizzly_home/