Grizzly victory in Alberta - and now for the real work of recovery

Today, Alberta’s Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, Mel Knight, announced that Alberta’s remaining grizzly bears have been listed as threatened in the province.  This is a significant victory for Alberta’s beleaguered bears, as well as the adjacent grizzly bear populations in the lower-48 states; and it reflects extensive, state- of -the-art scientific research conducted on bears and their habitat in Alberta over the last several decades. The win comes on the heels of a major bear conservation campaign, and the release last week of a highly critical report, The Grizzly Challenge: Ensuring a Future for Alberta’s Grizzlies, by a coalition of Alberta conservation organizations, the David Suzuki Foundation, and NRDC. Yours truly was up in Calgary just last Friday for the release of report with coalition members and its author, Jeff Gailus. (See yesterday’s blog for photos of the event.)

But now the real work begins. In our science-based report, we outline ten recommendations for what needs to be done to recover these bears, and to help sustain the neighboring – and imperiled – grizzly bear populations in the lower-48 states. We in the Alberta grizzly coalition look forward to working with the Alberta government to see that these recommendations are implemented, and that grizzly bear recovery in the province and its neighbor to the south becomes a reality -- for the fate of the grizzlies bears in both countries are closely intertwined. 

With an estimated  760 grizzlies living today in Alberta -- roughly the size of Montana’s  Glacier area grizzly population,  but split up into seven increasingly isolated sub-populations -- Alberta’s  bears are in dire straits.  Evidence on the status of remaining Alberta grizzly sub-populations and the recovery policies now in place shows that it is unlikely that these grizzly bear populations will be able to increase much above current numbers, which are much too small and fragmented to be considered viable or self-sustaining over the long term.

But, it is not too late to achieve recovery. Our report shows that there is still adequate habitat to support approximately 2000 grizzly bears in the province, maybe more, if aggressive restoration and mortality reduction programs are put in place, and ecological connections are maintained between grizzly populations in the province, between Alberta and British Columbia, and between Alberta and the U.S.   

Moving forward to recover Alberta grizzly bears: Lessons from the lower- 48

Following are three recommendations   we believe are especially important at this juncture.  I highlight below some comparisons between the U.S. and Canada grizzly bear management, and make recommendations intended to help tackle the challenge of recovering grizzly bears in Alberta, based on 25 years of personal experience trying to help recover the Great Bear in the lower- 48 states.  

1.  Redouble efforts to reduce human-caused grizzly bear mortality.  With the lowest reproductive rate of any mammal in North America, the grizzly bear is especially vulnerable to human-caused mortality. Most grizzly bears in Alberta and the lower- 48 states do not die of natural causes, but because humans kill them. In Alberta , as well as in the U.S, preventing grizzlies from dying as a result of habituation to garbage, or to other attractants such as grain spilled on train tracks (as happened just last week near Banff), is critically important. The government of Alberta announced today an increase in efforts to make communities in bear country “Bear Smart” – which is great – but both we in the U.S. and Canada have a LONG way to go to keep bears from dying needlessly as a result of conflicts with bears that have become habituated to human foods.   

2.  Develop a better recovery plan, and implement it.  According to the best available science and successful efforts towards recovery of grizzly bears elsewhere:

• The human-caused mortality thresholds in Alberta’s recovery plan are too high.  In some seriously imperiled grizzly populations in the lower-48 states, such as the Cabinet Yaak, which may number 20-40 individuals, the U.S. government has established an allowable mortality threshold of zero. (While the threshold is frequently is exceeded, at least it is an agreed-upon goal, which people are working towards). Similarly imperiled Alberta populations, such as the Swan Hills, should have a mortality threshold of zero.
• The recovery plan provides too little habitat protection and/or inadequate amounts of secure grizzly bear habitat. While the Yellowstone grizzly bear delisting plan is far from perfect -- as indicated by Federal District Judge Donald Molloy’s ruling last year overturning it -- at least it included a policy of “no net loss” of remaining core secure habitat, and limitations on roads and access. With the tireless work of Earthjustice attorney Douglas Honnold, we have significantly improved grizzly habitat security by forcing the U.S. Forest Service to close hundreds of miles of (unnecessary) logging roads through litigation. Unfortunately, the Canadian legal system is weaker, and does not allow for similar citizen-driven legal opportunities such as exist in the U.S.;  but, that does not mean that Alberta can’t replace its “loosey goosey” approach with legally binding standards on roads and habitat protection.  

3.  The provincial government recently shrunk, rather than increased, the size of the grizzly bear recovery area in its 2010 status report.  This is absurd, given the desperate condition of Alberta’s remaining bear populations.  These bears are threatened in large part because they have too little protected and productive habitat: the solution is not to shrink their habitat further.  In the lower- 48 states, a critical step towards grizzly bear recovery has been to allow grizzly populations to expand into adjacent suitable habitat, such as in the Glacier area, where grizzly bears are again roaming far out into the plains, with little conflict with humans.  The recovery plan should be revised to expand, rather than decrease, the recovery area.

4.  The Alberta grizzly bear recovery plan only addresses provincial lands, and does not ensure that bears in the federally managed portions of the grizzly bear ecosystems are also protected. It is makes no ecological sense to apply protections only to portions of populations, when grizzlies cannot read maps.  In the lower- 48 states, grizzly bears were listed across the U.S., and cover many different jurisdictions. This step has helped force the state, local and federal wildlife and land managing agencies to work together towards a common view of recovery. Again, the devil is in the details -- and the U.S.’s interagency grizzly coordination committee is often used as a fig leaf for doing nothing; but still, at a meta-level, there is a fundamental recognition that populations cannot be managed in a piecemeal way. Meaningful collaboration between federal and provincial management agencies within Alberta, and between Alberta and the U.S. on shared grizzly bear populations, is essential to make progress towards recovery. Part of the long-term solution to grizzly recovery in the Northern Rockies is the adoption of a new transboundary management approach – because we in the U.S. and Canada need each other to protect far-ranging animals like bears, that don’t have passports.

Starting today, with this promising and positive announcement by Alberta’s government, we (hopefully) will begin a new chapter, with a new commitment to recovery of grizzly bears in a province with ancient blood ties to our own grizzlies here in the lower-48 states. The time to implement the recommendations in our report is NOW -- before it is too late.  So, let’s roll up the sleeves and get on with the real work of recovery of a magnificent icon of the wild, an animal that reminds us of the wild spirit in our hearts.     

Comments