Biologists look for ways to preserve grizzlies as feds consider delisting

2014-07-13T03:45:00Z 2014-10-16T13:03:58Z Biologists look for ways to preserve grizzlies as feds consider delistingBy ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian missoulian.com

The grizzly bear answers to a lot of names.

Biologists call it Ursus arctos. They also describe it as an “ecological engineer” or “keystone predator.”

Wordy members of the general public call grizzlies “charismatic megafauna.” Others call them “vermin.” While running for president in 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain famously derided studying grizzlies as a classic example of “Washington, D.C., pork.”

McCain later apologized for misunderstanding the value of Montana grizzly bear researcher Kate Kendall’s DNA hair analysis. Kendall’s unlocking of grizzly genealogy, diet and movement from strands of fur had a huge impact on what we know about grizzlies in the continental United States. It’s part of the evidence the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relies on as it considers removing grizzly bears from the “threatened” list of the Endangered Species Act.

If that happens, the grizzly faces a fateful moment.

Americans once thought it was socially acceptable to shoot every bear on sight, in the interest of protecting life and livestock. Even as we memorialized grizzlies on the California state flag and the University of Montana’s athletics program, the actual animal followed the Rocky Mountain gray wolf, jaguars of the Southwest and Florida panthers onto the list of critters we really didn’t want to have around.

After 30 years of research, relocation and rhetoric, are we ready to share the landscape with a creature that occasionally considers us as a food source?

Almost half of the Lower 48’s grizzlies live in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, around the junction of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The Fish and Wildlife Service expects to publish a delisting plan this fall, eventually turning those roughly 700 bears over to state management. That potentially means creating a hunting season for an animal that’s been federally protected since 1975.

Almost 1,000 more grizzlies live in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, reaching from Missoula’s northern fringe to the Canadian border. A delisting plan for those bears could be ready by late 2015.

“Bear habitat is more than just space on the ground,” said FWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen in Missoula. “It’s the level of human acceptance that exists for them.”

Bears deep in the forests of the Bob Marshall Wilderness get a different level of attention than the grizzlies showing up on the urban fringes of Missoula and Kalispell. And it appears the more we see them, the more we want reassurance there are tools handy to control them.

“Our ability to accept bears is based on our ability to manage bears when they come into conflict with people,” Servheen said. “So it’s important we have that response system in place. It’s built. It exists. We coordinate among all the agencies involved, so that when the average person that lives in bear habitat calls, someone responds.”

That’s important, because while millions of people have opinions about grizzly bears, a tiny fraction of that number has to deal with a 500-pound omnivorous invader tearing up the chicken coop. What’s it worth to have such animals roaming the landscape?

***

Duke University biologist Norm Christensen studies how animals and fire disturb ecosystems in places like the Rocky Mountains. He sees big challenges ahead as human society pushes ever harder on the remaining places where grizzly bears can find isolation.

“If you look at the Wilderness Act, did we know what we wanted in 1964?” Christensen asked. “Did we get what we wanted? In 1964, nobody understood the issue of scale. We made a lot of arbitrary decisions, like a wilderness area had to be at least 5,000 acres. That’s the territory of a single bear or wolf pack.”

“Arbitrary boundaries don’t correspond to ecological boundaries for predators or fire,” Christensen continued. “You can see the western boundary of Yellowstone from space. It’s a straight line. And that just magnifies the management issues. You can’t just walk away and say it’s going to function on its own and we can do whatever the hell we like. I don’t know how one gets around that.”

But that’s what managers like Chris Servheen have to work with. FWS proposed transplanting grizzlies into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness along the Montana-Idaho border in the 1990s, but public opposition kept the plan on the shelf. Tiny populations of grizzlies hang on in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem of northern Montana, the Selkirks of northern Idaho and possibly the Cascade Mountains of Washington. They remain so isolated, FWS and state wildlife agencies relocate bears from bigger areas there in an attempt to expand genetic diversity.

Conservation biologist Stuart Pimm said that model may become the norm for preserving fragile species in our expanding human world. He recalled the reintroduction and rescue of Florida panthers in the Everglades over the past two decades.

“There was a lot of discussion about whether to allow it to go extinct, and whether we could rescue the population genetically,” Pimm said. “That was a really controversial and carefully thought-out intervention, yet they’re probably going to have to do it again every 40 or 50 years. That’s probably going to be inevitable.”

And it’s a cost Pimm said he’s willing to bear to keep such animals as part of our world.

“These populations aren’t going to make it otherwise, and it would be an enormous tragedy if grizzly bears and wolves and mountain lions were absent from the landscape. These ecosystems developed in the presence of large predators. I’m first-generation American, and I remember watching the ‘Wizard of Oz’ for the first time with my two daughters – ‘Lions and tigers and bears/ Oh my!’ Whatever the ecological argument I might make, it’s a spiritual thing how we pass on our rich natural heritage. I want to be able to take my grandchildren to see elk and grizzlies and other spectacular wildlife.”

***

Gary Wolfe works on the fence between the practical and philosophical needs of grizzly bears. As director of Vital Ground Foundation, he focuses the resources of thousands of bear advocates around the world to preserve crucial bits of habitat the bears need. On Friday, he was traveling to a Bigfork celebration and fundraising event for more such work.

“My wife and I spend an incredible amount of time in the Swan Valley,” Wolfe said. “In 20-plus years, we’ve seen dozens and dozens of fresh tracks. And yet I’ve still never seen a grizzly bear in the Swan Valley.”

And that’s far better than the case for many of Vital Ground’s members, who’ve rarely gotten closer than a Discovery Channel program to the animal they’re devoted to helping.

Wolfe can list numerous scientific reasons why grizzlies are necessary: Country good enough for grizzlies is great for almost every other form of wildlife, the big bears aerate mountain soils looking for ground squirrels and fertilize river corridors with digested fish. But there’s another aspect that touches even those people on the other side of the TV screen.

“The grizzly adds to the value of the wild country,” Wolfe said. “I grew up exploring the Pecos country of New Mexico. There used to be bears there, but not anymore. As I look back on spending time in the outdoors, my experience in wilderness areas of Montana with its full complement of wildlife and predators – grizzlies, cougar, lynx – it’s a different experience. If the grizzly wasn’t there, I’d personally be missing something. I don’t have the same experience in Colorado or New Mexico when I’m hiking there.”

Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at rchaney@missoulian.com.

Copyright 2015 missoulian.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. LCHelenajr
    Report Abuse
    LCHelenajr - August 31, 2014 1:12 pm
    The ecosystem can only support so many Wolves and Grizzlies. Montana,Idaho and Wyoming are currently saturated by Wolves and Grizzlies. Now Wolves and Grizzlies will die. Do you actually think that humans should commit suicide and cease to exist so we can make room for more Wolves and Grizzly bears? If so I would suggest that you be the 1st to make the ultimate sacrifice in the name of science.
  2. Ken Cullings
    Report Abuse
    Ken Cullings - July 14, 2014 12:51 pm
    As with the wolves, science won't matter. Even though the science shows that without predators whole ecosystems collapse. That hasn't mattered, and it won't matter. So long as Republicans, the Party of Faux News and Ignorance, run the House. So long as people who choose to live where animals are, but are frightened of animals, whine about the "dangers" instead of adopting responsible behavior and suspend their own selfishness long enough to consider co-existence Science will have no say. It's a shame that frightened little minds run the show when it comes to wildlife in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on Missoulian.com

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian (Missoulian.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in Missoulian.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on missoulian.com.

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick