Uproar over plan to delist Yellowstone grizzlies

Mike Stuckey Senior news editor • Profile • E-mail

A proposal to drop endangered species protections for Yellowstone’s grizzly bears has triggered growls of disagreement among environmentalists and scientists over what is best for the future of the species.

On one side are the federal and state officials charged with managing and protecting the bears. They say that 30 years of protection under the Endangered Species Act has allowed Yellowstone’s grizzly population to triple and thrive, and it’s time to move on. They’re backed by a huge wildlife conservation group that says the very act of taking the Yellowstone bears off the threatened species list will redirect attention and resources to areas where grizzlies remain endangered.

On the other side are marquee environmental groups who admit that a lot of progress has been made in saving Yellowstone’s grizzly population but say the plan to delist the bears is premature and does not contain necessary safeguards.

“Environmentalists are a tricky lot, aren’t we?” says Nina Fascione of Defenders of Wildlife, a group that hasn’t yet taken a position on the proposal.

Grizzlies, who go by the scientific name of Ursus arctos horribilis, number more than 50,000 between Alaska and Canada. They roamed the lower 48 states by the tens of thousands in the days of Lewis and Clark. Now, however, they dwell in just 1 or 2 percent of their previous range there, totaling perhaps 1,200. In addition to the Yellowstone population, there are much smaller groups of grizzlies in five other areas in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington.

The delisting proposal covers only the bears in the Yellowstone area. If the grizzlies are taken off the threatened species list, it would no longer be against federal law to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" them. It would be up to the states to regulate "taking" of grizzlies, which could include hunting. And, since human-bear conflicts are the biggest cause of death for grizzlies, among the slowest reproducing mammals on the planet, opponents of delisting worry that removal of federal prohibitions on killing them could open the door to many more "self-defense" killings by ranchers, who lose livestock to bears, and other private property owners.

Everybody has an expert
Both sides in the delisting debate bring an army of scientists and bear researchers. One of the foremost in arguing for delisting of the Yellowstone grizzlies is Dr. Chris Servheen of the University of Montana, who also happens to be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s grizzly bear recovery coordinator, a post he’s held since the federal government began planning to save the bears in 1981.

“We feel we’re ready to delist the grizzly bear,” Servheen says. Since July 28, 1975, when bears were first listed as a threatened species, Servheen says, the Yellowstone population has grown from perhaps 200 bears (estimates were not nearly as good then) to more than 600 by today’s “very accurate” count. And, he says, all “recovery parameters” established for the bears also have been met or exceeded: the number of females with new cubs; the distribution of moms with cubs throughout the Yellowstone area; overall mortality in the bear population of less then 4 percent.

As a result, Servheen and his colleagues have written a proposal to take the bears off the threatened species list. Once that proposal is made public sometime in the fall, federal and state agencies from Montana, Idaho and Wyoming involved in managing the Yellowstone grizzlies will take public comment for 90 days.

When Fish and Wildlife Service officials feel like they have addressed all concerns raised in the comment period, they’ll move ahead with delisting the bears, Servheen says. “This whole thing is based on a very firm foundation of science.”

Louisa Willcox of the Natural Resources Defense Council agrees that "sound science" should be the criteria for listing and delisting under the Endangered Species Act, but said “we believe that there are some significant, serious flaws” in the federal proposal to delist the bears.

Willcox, who herself has been working to protect bears for 20 years, believes that there should be 2,000 to 3,000 bears “living in connected ecosystems” before they are delisted. “The bear may be out of the emergency room, but it’s certainly not ready to be released from the hospital,” Willcox says.

In addition to a larger population, NRDC would like wildlife managers to take a closer look at threats to the whitebark pine, whose seeds are an important part of the Yellowstone bears’ diet, and determine exactly how large and well-protected the grizzlies’ habitat will be if the shield of the Endangered Species Act is lifted.

Willcox particularly worries about the effects of gas and oil exploration and other development on habitat. “We question how the Bush administration can declare victory for the grizzly when they’re declaring war on its habitat.” And she questions the commitment of states and the federal government to pay for protecting and monitoring the bears.

MORE FROM ENVIRONMENT

Environment Section Front

Ice addict aims for poles, Everest in one year Ice trekker posts from Antarctica Hawaii's beaches are being eaten up Clinton: No binding climate treaty likely U.N. report puts dollar value on ecosystems Huge Andes lake is drying up Record high temps are double the lows Warming drives off Cape Cod's namesake Iceberg drifts off island south of Australia Brazil: Big drop in Amazon deforestation Environment Section Front   Add Environment headlines to your news reader: