Public is steadfast in their support for stronger Yellowstone grizzly bear protections

A few weeks ago, Montana State University (MSU) Billings released the results of a telephone survey of Montanans on a series of questions, including, "Do you feel that grizzly bears found in Yellowstone Park and the surrounding areas should be protected under the federal government's endangered species list, or should they be removed from the list?" A majority (54%) of those interviewed replied "should be protected." 30% of the respondents said that grizzlies should be removed from the endangered species list, and 16% were undecided. So, nearly twice as many of the respondents want to see grizzly bears protected under the Endangered Species Act as those who oppose these protections.

The strong expression of support is consistent with public responses since 1997 concerning numerous grizzly bear management decisions that set the stage for the removal of endangered species protections for the Yellowstone grizzly bear in 2007. In each public comment process, the public — inside and outside the Yellowstone region — expressed overwhelming support for grizzlies, including expansion of their current range and opposition to premature delisting.

When you put it all together, there is a huge, long legacy of public support for strengthening protections for grizzly bears and their habitat in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Here's a brief chronology:

1.) In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released a "habitat based criteria" document designed to establish habitat goals for recovery and to address key deficiencies in FWS's 1992 recovery plan, which were identified by a federal court ruling in 1995. According to the content analysis team, 15,750 comments were submitted to FWS, with over 97% in support of strengthening conservation and habitat standards in the plan.

2.) In 2000, FWS released the draft Conservation Strategy, which provided direction for implementing the "habitat based criteria." Of the 16,794 comments submitted to FWS, over 99% supported strengthening the strategy in favor of stronger grizzly and habitat protections.

3.) In 2001, the State of Wyoming released its draft plan for management of grizzlies after delisting. Over 8,000 comments were submitted, more than any other wildlife plan, "shattering the record" in Wyoming history, according to Wyoming Game and Fish information officer Larry Kruckenberg. Over 95% of the comments supported strengthening grizzly protections and expanding grizzly range beyond the FWS grizzly recovery zone (which includes just 60% of the habitat where grizzlies currently live).

4.) Because Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials had doubts about the veracity of the results of the public comment process described above, it embarked on a separate telephone survey of Wyoming citizens in 2001. Of the 1,500 randomly selected Wyoming citizens interviewed, 87% agreed that grizzlies are an important component of their ecosystem, and 74% agreed that grizzlies are a great benefit to Wyoming. The majority of respondents (66%) supported grizzly bear expansion into all suitable habitats in Wyoming, including the Wyoming Range (73%) and the Wind River mountains (67%). There was not a significant difference among respondents between those who lived near or in grizzly bear habitat and those who lived in non-grizzly habitat in the state.

5.) In 2001, the State of Idaho released its plan for managing bears after delisting. Of the 400 comments received by the state, over 80% of these comments supported stronger protections for the grizzly. (The short comment process happened over the holidays-hence the small number of comments.)

6.) In 2002, Montana finalized its plan for managing the grizzly after delisting. The state received over 11,000 comments, with almost all of the comments supportive of more protections for the grizzly.

7.) In 2003, the U.S. Forest Service developed a draft Environmental Impact Statement on management of grizzly habitat on national forests in the GYE after delisting. Of the over 59,400 comments submitted in the scoping process, 99% of the commenters supported greater protections for habitat for the grizzly.

8.) In 2006, FWS conducted a public comment process on the proposed grizzly bear delisting rule. Of the roughly 212,000 comments submitted on the grizzly bear delisting proposal, over 99% of the commenters supported greater protections for the grizzly and opposed premature delisting. (See below for a few great quotes we gleaned from a week's worth of reading individual comments in FWS's offices.)

In addition, a letter signed by 237 credentialed scientists, as well as one submitted by the North American Section of the Society for Conservation Biology, also opposed delisting, in part due to threats to key grizzly foods, particularly whitebark pine. So, in light of such enormous, consistent public opposition to delisting for over 12 years and support for stronger protections, why was the grizzly bear delisted?

A simple question, but the answer is more complicated. According to Dr. Susan Clark, who wrote an insightful and comprehensive book on the "problem" of interagency management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Ensuring Yellowstone's Future: Choices for Leaders and Citizens, the current management framework, institutional arrangements, and orientation, values and cultures of the involved agencies and their leaders make the grizzly bear management system inherently resistant to change and unable to respond effectively to new circumstances. Current grizzly bear management is dominated by government agencies, and it excludes key stakeholders in deliberations and decision-making. No non-governmental organizations serve on the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee. Dr. Clark says:

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee has relied unreflexively on scientific management principles and bureaucratic rules, roles and regulations of the agencies to understand and address the bears' management problem. History shows that this square-peg-in-a-round-hole approach is extremely corrosive to inter-personal relations, leading to more time in the courtroom, dueling scientific communities, and more. Overall, the committee's approach to "politicize science" and "scientize politics" has been detrimental to everyone involved and certainly led to the drawing down in trust and government's community social capital, both of which are needed to facilitate finding common ground in diverse communities. All of the benefits that might have occurred from a larger, more insightful, functional understanding, such as creation of an ongoing forum for addressing and reducing conflicts, cooperative development of best practices for coexisting with bears, improved decision-making about management and interfacing more successfully with the public and local and state governments, have never materialized. There have been huge opportunity costs with the present bear management structure and its problem solving and leadership style.

These costs are born by all of us — those for, against, and neutral on the subject of grizzly recovery. In short, the current system fails to serve the public interest.

In the wake of U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's decision to relist the Yellowstone grizzly bear on September 21, 2009, it is critical to remember how much the public has unequivocally supported grizzly recovery — and the continued public support is reflected in MSU's recent poll.

It is important to remember too that the grizzly is an animal that's been reduced to 1% of its former range when Europeans arrived in North America, and an animal the public wants to see recovered. (Taxpayers have also spent many millions of dollars to ensure that happens.) Yellowstone and Glacier are the last two major strongholds for grizzly bear recovery left in the lower 48, and the last places where we have a good chance of getting grizzly recovery right. Listening to what the public has to say would be a good first step in the right direction.

Listening to what the scientists have been saying would be a good second step. For years, leading experts have been raising concerns about new threats that have arisen with global warming, including drastic reductions of its key foods, such as whitebark pine and Yellowstone cutthroat trout, as well as increases in mortality and conflicts. For example, in 4 of the last 5 years, allowable mortality threshold have been violated — and we are one bear away from breaching these thresholds right now.

As management agencies move forward to deal with dead bears, collapsing whitebark pine, and the legal and other deficiencies in FWS's recently invalidated delisting rule, they should remember that they act in the public trust — and the public wants them to do the right thing to ensure that grizzly bears will be here for future generations.

A Sample of comments submitted on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Yellowstone Grizzly Delisting Proposal.

"I rode with the U.S. Customs Patrol by pack string along the Canadian Line 1938, '39, '40, guided in Glacier Park '41 and '42. And spent much time in the Montana, Wyoming Idaho Mountain country. I know Yellowstone and the Griz history there, and with a few hard-won gains I'd hate to see it thrown away. The protection of Griz and its habitat should at least be continued for thirty more years....No, you cannot trust the states for enforcement and you never could. The local pressures are too great. Al Capone was taken only after the feds went in." Robert Grace, Santa Ana, California

"After 67 years of living in Cody, Wy. Area, and being a life long big game hunter I am trying to justify delisting the grizzly. I volunteer now with the Wapiti District, Shoshone Natl Forest, just east of Yellowstone. I am in the field 7 days a week and looking for bears. I have not seen enough bears to make me feel like delisting is warranted. I doubt you folks know the mouthwatering frenzy you have created by making your announcement to delist the bear. Every outfitter in the area is already calling hunters booking hunts, and the Wyo. G and Fish is counting their money. As one grandfather of hunters I say very strongly — you people are out of your minds, do not delist the bear." Danny Smith, Cody, WY

"There are only 600. Just 600. That's not even a full theater's worth. 600 is nothing", M.J. Clissold.

"Hi I'm Payton Leahy a 10 year old girl who cleans up trash on her play ground every day with my best friend Laura Mesick. Well I think that grizzly bears should not be removed from the endangered species list....I just hope that the children of the future get to see and love them." Payton Leahy, Seattle, WA