Dueling Scientists
Why Scientists Disagree on Grizzly Delisting
By Bill Schneider, 3-24-06
 | |
|
The following is a NewWest special feature to drill down on a point that has been bothering us and many of our visitors. If we have a wealth of science supporting removal of the grizzlies of Yellowstone from the protection of the Endangered Species Act, why is there so much disagreement among scientists as to whether the time is right for delisting? We asked one outstanding scientist from each side of the issue to answer this question, and here are their answers. I also discuss this issue in this week’s Wild Bill column. -- Bill Schneider
| This Success Story Can Be Replicated Elsewhere
By Sterling Miller, Ph.D. It is not surprising that scientists have differing views on the wisdom of delisting grizzlies in the Yellowstone area. There are strategic components to the issue, as well as technical ones. Some believe that grizzlies will fare best if maintained as a listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) even in areas, like Yellowstone, where long-established recovery criteria have been achieved. Typically, this position is supported by emphasizing the things that might happen in the future that could result in grizzly bear declines. Since grizzlies will always face potential future risks, this position amounts to implicit acceptance that grizzlies will need to remain forever listed. Opponents of delisting usually also emphasize the unsurprising conclusion that larger populations are more likely to persist longer than smaller ones. However, the non-trivial questions are what size is sufficiently secure and how best to proceed to achieve larger and more secure populations. Most wildlife biologists believe the best approach for replicating the successful grizzly bear recovery effort in Yellowstone is to embrace it as a model for recovery efforts elsewhere. This is a positive and reinforcing approach toward grizzly conservation that recognizes that it is tough to be a grizzly in today’s world and that future progress will depend on continuing the cooperative state-federal efforts that have achieved Yellowstone’s current success. These scientists acknowledge that grizzlies might need to be relisted in the future if worst case scenarios eventuate. However, they recognize that this risk is preferable to risking destroying the cooperative conservation efforts that are critical to continued progress. During the last 25 years, progress in grizzly conservation in Yellowstone was made, at least in part, because some members of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee were motivated by the knowledge that the 1993 Recovery Plan had recovery goals that were both scientifically sound and attainable. Actions that would replace pragmatic and achievable delisting criteria with unachievable ones will work against attainment of geographically widespread population recovery efforts. Many scientists and biologists recognize that delisting Yellowstone’s grizzlies is now appropriate. This is the position of The Wildlife Society (TWS), the professional society of wildlife biologists around the world. Founded in 1937, TWS has 7,600 members (6,980 in the US). Its membership includes most professional wildlife biologists working for universities, state or federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and consulting firms. The positions of TWS chapters in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho also support delisting. The TWS positions demonstrate that scientific support for delisting is broadly based among professional wildlife biologists. An independent group of 31 scientists also supported delisting; this group is composed largely of bear experts and regionally-active scientists. Although scientists may disagree on tactics, there are some facts that are clear. 1) The Yellowstone grizzly bear population is the most studied and best-understood population in the world. If the science that includes more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals is inadequate to establish the number and trends for the Yellowstone population, then there is little hope it could ever be adequate for any population. 2) All of the recovery criteria established in the recovery plan have been achieved. 3) The Conservation Strategy mandates that efforts will continue to connect the currently isolated Yellowstone population with other ecosystems. Opponents of delisting have never explained why they think creating linkage zones will be facilitated by continued listing. 4) Although it is certainly true that small population are demographically more likely to go extinct than larger ones, a peer-reviewed scientific monograph concluded that this likelihood was very small for the Yellowstone population: “…99.2% probability [of persistence] for 100 years” (Boyce et al. 2001). 5) Studies have concluded that genetic diversity probably has not declined in Yellowstone during the last century and that “The viability of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is unlikely to be compromised by genetic factors in the near future.” (C. Miller and L. Waits 2003). This and other studies conclude that the proposal to periodically translocate 1-2 bears into Yellowstone every decade would be sufficient to increase genetic diversity. Whatever mechanism we might preferred, it does not make any genetic difference if genes from neighboring populations arrive by natural immigration or through translocation. Although there is no consensus among scientists that delisting is the best path for future conservation efforts for grizzlies, it is reassuring that so many prominent scientists and wildlife biologists from a wide diversity of institutions and backgrounds have recognized the wisdom of this course of action. The easiest thing in the world is to say “more is better”, the more sophisticated analysis is to be open to the potential to make more rapid and permanent progress under a delisted management paradigm. The Endangered Species Act has been successful in Yellowstone. If this success is not undercut by excessive angst over how the situation might be still better, this success story can be replicated elsewhere. Editor’s note:Sterling Miller is a Senior Wildlife Biologist with the National Wildlife Federation based in Missoula. He studied at the University of Montana and received his Ph.D from the University of Washington. Formerly a grizzly bear researcher in Alaska, Sterling has published some 40 peer-reviewed publications on bears and other species. His is a former President of the International Association for Bear Research and Management and is currently an Affiliate faculty member in the wildlife departments of the University of Montana and University of Alaska Fairbanks. |
In This Administration, Do We Dare Remove the Protections Responsible for Saving the Grizzly?
By Lance Craighead, Ph.D I’ve been asked to comment on the disagreement among scientists concerning whether or not we are ready to remove the grizzly bear from the list of threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act. Although this issue has been characterized as a “severe split” within the scientific community, I see it more as a difference of opinion. I think it is safe to say that all of the scientists that are interested and knowledgeable about this issue are in agreement about what grizzly bears need and where they can live. They all have the best interests of grizzly bears at heart. They agree that grizzly bears are important ecologically and that maintaining populations in the Lower-48 is a social and ethical obligation. Perhaps the viewpoint of scientists can best be expressed by the Governing Council of the International Bear Association. I am proud to be a member of the IBA. The Council reviewed the arguments in favor of, and opposed to, delisting; and neither supported nor opposed it, but gave their best assessment on what they concluded were the most important issues that should be addressed. Excerpts from their comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follow. I’ve added my own emphasis in bold. The entire document can be found at this website. “IBA is the professional organization for wildlife biologists working to conserve and restore the world’s bears through research, science-based population and habitat management, and education. Our organization is comprised of nearly 600 bear specialists from 47 countries and includes university professors, biologists working in natural resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, and zoos, graduate students, and educators.” “The goal of the ESA is to devise an effective management approach that will lead to the recovery of species listed as Endangered or Threatened and result in their removal from that list. We fully support this goal. However, because it is difficult to achieve total security for a population or to scientifically identify the precise point at which a population is “reasonably” robust to demographic perturbations, substantial debate is to be expected among both scientists and members of the public regarding potential responses by wildlife populations to changes in management that may accompany changes in their designated status. In the case of Yellowstone’s grizzly bears, varying interpretation of the facts has led different experts, all of whom have the best interests of bears in mind, to hold divergent opinions regarding how much certainty should be required to formally recognize the population status as Recovered.” “Should Delisting Be Supported?” “If the questions were entirely scientific and biological in character, the issue would be much easier. The science is reasonably solid and better than we usually have at our disposal. It is clear that the recovery process has been successful thus far. There is a clear plan to continue monitoring and manage the population over the coming years. Nevertheless, we wonder about the future status of the population and the management under a new political regime. Will the plans be carried out in practice? These are difficult questions to answer and clearly lie outside the realm of science.” “We believe there is sufficient merit in the document to indicate that the delisting criteria have been met, but that there are possible gaps in our knowledge and uncertainties on the status of the population and political support for conservation that make an unconditional endorsement of the delisting a tenuous position for IBA. There are credible scientists advocating on both sides of delisting. Most of the debate focuses not on the science of the case, but the expectation of what will happen when delisting occurs, and authority shifts to the States. The reality is that the debate over delisting is essentially political.” I feel that the IBA addressed the key points in these concluding paragraphs. In separate comments to the FWS that I co-authored with Dr. Barrie Gilbert and Tom Olenicki we characterized the success of the current plan after de-listing as dependent upon good luck (in respect to stochastic events) and good will (in respect to deterministic events). Stochastic events are random changes in environment (weather, climate, disease), demography (numbers of bears, sex ratios, birth and death rates), or genetics. All of these factors have worse effects the smaller the grizzly population is. All of these factors can be somewhat lessened if grizzlies have more habitat to utilize. With the amount of habitat that is currently offered, we feel they will need good luck in order to thrive. As to the other point, good will, we need to consider the current political and economic climate. In another 50 years, the Greater Yellowstone area will look like the environs of Denver, or perhaps even the California Sierras: both of which once supported thriving grizzly populations. In addition to the growth and development that is inevitably occurring, we are also faced with the Bush Administration’s War on Terra. Terra Firma, that is. Consider these points: 1)A bill is currently underway to weaken the ESA 2)Federal lands are being offered for sale 3)US Forest Service policies are being revised and made more discretionary 4)US National Park Service policies are being revised and made more discretionary 5)The ‘Clear Skies’ policy will relax air pollution standards 6)The Bush Administration cancelled the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot, which was an open and democratic process culminating many years of careful science. 7)The Bush Administration rejected the Roadless Rule adopted by the Clinton Administration, which was an open and democratic process culminating many years of careful science. In response to 1): a letter prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists expresses our support for the ESA in its current form. 5,738 scientists with biological expertise signed on to the letter in less than a month, with at least 25 signers from every state and hundreds from a number of states. In addition, six leading scientific organizations: The Society for Conservation Biology, the American Fisheries Society, Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, Society for Range Management and The Wildlife Society: major societies that collectively represent over 25,000 scientists and managers whose expertise reflects the best scientific advice on the ESA prepared a document and held a briefing for Senate staff. A bill is being prepared that supports strengthening, not weakening, the role of science in endangered species management. It is abundantly clear that scientists feel that the ESA is very important, and that it is working well in its present form. We also feel that eventually grizzly bears should be Recovered under the ESA. Disagreement is primarily about the lack of any real habitat protections under delisting; and the politics involved. I feel that many of these same scientists are asking themselves: in this political climate, with this administration’s antipathy toward the environment, should we be removing the protections that have been responsible for recovering the grizzly up to this point? Editor’s Note: Since 1994, Lance Craighead is the Executive Director of the Craighead Environmental Research Institute. He coordinates research; helping synthesize results and directing communications and is responsible for fundraising and development. He has a Bachelor's degree (BS) from Carleton College in 1969, an MSc in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1977, and a PhD in Biological Sciences from Montana State University in 1994. He is currently an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biology at MSU. He is an experienced field ecologist, population geneticist, and GIS technician with several years of experience in conservation area design. Lance has published numerous scientific papers, completed two book chapters, and published one book: "Bears of the World" for Colin Baxter/Voyageur Press. Lance is a member of the IUCN World Committee on Protected Areas, the Society for Conservation Biology, the Society for Conservation GIS and the Wildlife Society. He is vice-president of the Northern Rockies Conservation Co-op. |
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
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 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.
He tell ya, leave them their critters ALONE!!
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?
Just what we need! Somebody bring in something else for a half a million people to support for the entertainment of city folks.
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.
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
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.
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.