Louisa Willcox's Blog: Saving Wildlife and Wild Places tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/lwillcox//93 2010-04-20T20:08:43Z Movable Type Enterprise 1.52 A Big Step for Bear Kind: Go BLM! tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/lwillcox//93.5841 2010-04-16T22:17:55Z 2010-04-20T20:08:43Z Louisa Willcox Without fanfare or fuss, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), District Manager Tim Bozorth, recently took a big step to reduce the potential for bear conflicts with big game hunters.  The BLM is now requiring that outfitters operating on its lands in the Dillon District carry bear pepper spray.  This move will help keep hunters and bears safe: according to grizzly bear expert Dr. Stephen Herrero, bear pepper spray has been found to be 95% effective in deterring bears in close encounter situations.

This decision comes at a critical time, as big game hunters have emerged as a leading cause of grizzly bear mortality in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.  In the fall, bears are in hyper-drive, seeking to pack on the pounds necessary to survive months in hibernation.  Some grizzlies have learned that the sound of a gunshot can signal a potential food reward: a gut pile or other remains of a dead elk.  In other instances, hunters may be moving quietly through the woods, and accidently bump into a grizzly bear at a range too close for the comfort of either party—and the result can be a dead bear or an injured person.  In other circumstances, hunters who shoot their elk late in the day and leave the carcass on the ground overnight find the next morning that a grizzly is feeding on the remains—and ready to dispute their ownership.

In these and other close encounter situations with grizzly bears, bear spray has been proven to be an effective alternative to a gun.  By spraying a cloud of red-hot pepper out 25 feet, 9 feet across, you don’t have to be a particularly good aim either—and you don’t risk the ire and/or potential injury from a grizzly wounded by a gunshot. 

NRDC and other grizzly bear advocates have long argued that hunters carry bear pepper spray as a common-sense precautionary practice.  This makes particular sense since dead deer and elk are such powerful grizzly attractants.  And, with the loss of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as a result of an unprecedented outbreak of mountain pine beetles—the result of warming winter temperatures—grizzly bear/hunter conflicts can be expected to increase, as hungry grizzlies seek high-calorie alternative foods in the fall.

The biggest hurdle to expanding the use of bear pepper spray among hunters has been that some are not convinced of its effectiveness.  Others are resistant to changing their old habits and traditional hunting practices.  Although all of the land management and wildlife agencies endorse and encourage the use of bear pepper spray by hunters and other recreationists in grizzly country, they have been typically reluctant to require that people carry it and know how to use it.  One major exception is Grand Teton National Park, where hunters are required to carry bear spray.  (Unlike most national parks, Grand Teton allows hunting in a portion of the park.)  At an Interagency Grizzly Bear meeting last fall, Grant Teton Park biologist Steve Cain reported that the Park’s bear spray requirements met virtually no resistance by hunters.  This suggests that more hunters are learning more about its benefits, and getting used to carrying it.

Requiring that hunters carry bear spray simply makes sense—just like requiring people to buckle-up their seatbelts for their own safety.  Of course, bear spray is not “brains in a can”—and you still need to know what you are doing if you’re going to be hunting in grizzly bear country—but it certainly can help in a close encounter bear situation.

BLM District Manager Tim Bozorth’s recent decision to require outfitters on Dillon area BLM lands to carry bear spray is a sound one—and other agencies, particularly the U.S. Forest Service, should follow his example.  The BLM lands in the Dillon district will become increasingly important to the future of the grizzly bear, which will need additional wild land habitat to offset the loss of whitebark pine in the core of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.  Some of these lands also comprise critical habitat connecting Yellowstone to central Idaho’s Selway Bitterroot Ecosystem, where bears have been virtually eliminated—but where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that recovery of a population of 400-600 bears is possible.  In the long run, keeping grizzly bears in the lower-48 states healthy will involve expanding where bears can be, recolonizing and recovering grizzlies in the Selway Bitterroot Ecosystem, and connecting the long-isolated Yellowstone grizzly bear population along the Continental Divide (including some of the Dillon area BLM land), through the Selway Bitterroot ecosystem, to more robust grizzly bear populations in British Columbia. 

Tim Bozorth deserves high praise for taking such a practical step to help keep bears and hunters safe—and to make achieving this important long-term vision of grizzly bear recovery within closer reach.  Way to go BLM!  May other public land managers follow your lead!

]]> Hunting Grizzlies in Parks: No April Fool’s Joke tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/lwillcox//93.5725 2010-04-01T20:31:42Z 2010-04-11T17:03:12Z Louisa Willcox No joke: today is opening day for grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia parks.  The idea of hunting grizzlies in parks would be unthinkable in the lower-48 states, where parks are considered safe refuges for wildlife, providing the public with an increasingly rare experience: naturally functioning ecosystems, with a suite of wildlife in their natural state, doing what they have been doing for millennia.  For many, parks provide a precious glimpse—as close as you can get—to the vast wildlands of North America, before Europeans entered the scene and swept the continent as clean as they could of carnivores like grizzlies, that they considered a threat to themselves and to their notion of progress.  In the lower-48 states, the idea of hunting in parks like Yellowstone—let alone hunting an increasingly rare and vulnerable animal like the grizzly—would cause an uproar that you would hear around the world.  The notion would be killed as fast as a mother grizzly kills an elk calf to feed her cubs.

But, in British Columbia (B.C.), our neighbor to the north, this is just what is happening—starting today.  And if the sheer fact that hunting grizzlies in parks weren’t bad enough, take a look at the tremendous excess of the killing.  In a report released today by the David Suzuki Foundation and Natural Resources Defense Council, statistics show that the B.C. government’s limits on human-caused grizzly deaths were exceeded in 63 % of local grizzly bear populations (called Grizzly Bear Population Units) at least once over a five-year period. In some cases, the number of grizzlies – which no longer exist or are at risk of extinction in parts of the world – killed by humans was more than double the number deemed allowable by the government.

That means that government-sponsored hunting has been and continues to jeopardize the health of some B.C. populations.  And if that weren’t bad enough, some of these grizzly populations lie right along our border with Canada.  Of particular concern is the Flathead, where between 2004 and 2008, the period for which the most reliable population data is available, the allowable human-caused mortality rate was exceeded in four of the five years (once by 130 percent).  The annual grizzly bear hunt in the Flathead is not sustainable, and British Columbia’s hunting policies could harm the health of the federally protected Flathead grizzlies on our side of the border.

The Flathead has been called “one of the grizzliest places in the lower-48 states,” because it boasts the highest densities of any grizzly population remaining here.  And, because of the incredible ecological diversity in the Flathead—with the highest diversity of carnivores of any area in North America—U.S. and Canada have recently agreed to ban mining to protect this unique landscape and the grizzlies that call it home.  But, today, the same government that made a commitment to protecting habitat in the Flathead is undermining its own efforts by allowing grizzly bear hunting there.

We in the lower-48 states rely on Canada grizzly bears to sustain our own threatened populations.  Four out of the five remaining grizzly populations lie along the British Columbia border.  And, the 1992 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s grizzly bear recovery plan was orginally built on the assumption that Canada’s more robust populations would continue to support and help maintain grizzly bear populations in the lower-48 states.  That may no longer be true, given what is going on in British Columbia (and Alberta too—but that is a separate story).  Indeed, the opportunity to recover the threatened grizzly bear in the lower-48 states may be undercut by excessive hunting right across our border.

Grizzly bear home ranges are enormous—some 200-400 square miles—because that is the size of landscapes they need to find the foods necessary to survive their long winter sleep, a time when female grizzlies bear and nurse their young without eating or drinking for months.  And, of course, bears can’t read maps.  But if they could, we should be posting signs today along the 49th Parallel in the Flathead saying, “I’d turn back if I were you”.

What is boggling about what is going on in British Columbia is that it is a repeat of the grizzly bear movie that has played out in the lower-48 states.  The same forces are at play in British Columbia as those that decimated grizzlies in the lower-48 states,  where grizzly bears have been reduced to 1% of their former numbers in just 200 years, as a result of excessive killing and habitat loss.   One of the reasons that the grizzly bears remain in their last strongholds here, such as Glacier and Yellowstone, is the fact that they could find refuge in parks, where they were not hunted, harassed, or poisoned.  With the sanctuary of the parks, as well as powerful legal protective tools such as the Endangered Species Act, we have made great strides toward improving the health of some of our grizzly bear populations.  For example, grizzlies numbered roughly 200 individuals in 1975, when they were listed under the Endangered Species Act; today, grizzlies number somewhere between 500-600 individuals.

Although today is April Fool’s day, it feels more like the movie “Groundhog Day”, where protagonist Bill Murray had to make the same mistakes over, and over, and over—until he finally figured out how to get it right.  In the case of the grizzly, that means not only banning the B.C. grizzly bear hunt in the parks, but redoubling efforts to protect core wildland habitat for an animal that is particularly sensitive to development.  It means crafting new transboundary strategies that reflect the fact that we in the U.S. and Canada need each other if we are going to have sustainable and healthy grizzly bears in the future.  If we in Canada and the U.S.—countries which have made much of their commitment to conservation of wildlife and wilderness—cannot do what is necessary to protect an icon of the wild and a symbol of our parks, where can we possibly do it?

]]> Grizzly Bears: Taking Stock of 2009, And a Bear Prayer for 2010 tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.5021 2009-12-31T18:38:41Z 2010-01-10T14:05:11Z Louisa Willcox As grizzly bears have finally settled into their dens for a long winter sleep, it is time to take stock of the status of the populations that make up the last strongholds for grizzly bears in the Northern Rockies.  These populations include the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Glacier Ecosystem population (also known as the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem), the Cabinet Yaak, Selkirk, and a few ghost bears in central Idaho’s Selway Bitterroot Ecosystem.

What went well, and what didn’t?  During this winter reprieve, when bears will neither eat, drink, nor defecate, what can we do to evaluate our efforts to recover these threatened populations, so as to improve our capacity to share space with an animal that’s been reduced to 1% of its former range?  The news from 2009 is both good and bad -- and some of it can only be called ugly or absurd.  There is a lot to learn from what happened in 2009 to improve bear conservation efforts for 2010 and beyond, to ensure that these magnificent creatures will be among us for generations to come.  

THE GOOD

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)

  • On September 21st, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy restored endangered species protections for Yellowstone grizzly bears, determining that state mechanisms to manage bears after delisting were inadequate, and that one of the Yellowstone grizzly bears’ major food sources, whitebark pine seeds, are at risk due to global warming and mountain pine beetles that are killing whitebark pine at unprecedented rates.  This means there is again federal “look before you leap” oversight of activities that could be potentially harmful to grizzlies, renewed potential for additional resources under the ESA for state recovery efforts, and a prohibition on killing or harassing grizzlies (with stiff penalties for poachers).
  • Yellowstone National Park had zero human conflicts with grizzly bears this year!  This was the best year ever for coexistence among bears and people in our nation’s first park, in 27 years of bear-human conflict documentation by the National Park Service.  Just 25 years ago, Yellowstone was the center of a storm of conflicts and human-caused grizzly mortalities in the GYE, but this year bears and humans stayed safe, even with 3 million visitors and 850 bear (traffic) jams!  Kudos to Yellowstone Park and the dedicated staff who worked tirelessly to make this year a success for grizzlies, as well as for the people who traveled far to view bears and behaved well in the company of these great creatures.

Glacier, or Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE)

  • Grizzly bears continue to move eastward from the Rocky Mountain Front across the prairie grasslands—more than 70 miles from the mountains, farther than in recent history.  The prairie-dwelling grizzly, which has basically been exterminated in neighboring Alberta, is making a comeback on the east side of Glacier Park!  Thanks go to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials, as well as ranchers and others who are demonstrating a willingness to share habitat with these far-ranging grizzlies and are taking important precautions to keep bears from becoming habituated to human foods and other attractants. 
  • Work continues on a DNA-based census of the Glacier grizzly bear population, which is estimated at around 700 bears.  The census is based on an extensive bear hair snaring effort that has been underway for the last 6 years.  This DNA technique has some significant advantages over the traditional use of radio collars to assess population size, by being more thorough, accurate, and less intrusive.

Selway/Bitterroot Ecosystem

  • Although it was thought that bears had been extirpated by the 1970s in the vast wildlands of central Idaho’s Selway/Bitterroot ecosystem, a few bears have been showing up inside the Selway/Bitterroot grizzly recovery zone.  Just as occurred last year, this year a bear was found inside the zone—but unfortunately was mistaken for a black bear and met an accidental death.  Still, these grizzly bears are demonstrating that good habitat is available in the Selway/Bitterroot ecosystem, and dispersal of grizzlies between Northern Rockies ecosystems is still possible.

Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem

  • One of the grizzly bears previously translocated to the Cabinet Yaak ecosystem was found still alive in the ecosystem this year, as was an offspring.  The translocation of several grizzlies from Canada, conducted over a decade ago, was intended to boost this beleaguered grizzly bear population, which may only have 40 or so animals remaining in an isolated population in northwest Montana.

THE BAD

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)

  • In 4 of the last 6 years, allowable grizzly bear mortality thresholds have been violated.  And this year, as in 2007, we were only one dead bear away from violating the mortality thresholds.  With the lowest reproductive rate of any mammal in North America, the grizzly is especially vulnerable to excessive rates of killing.  The leading causes of death are conflicts with big game hunters and the habituation of grizzlies to human foods and garbage, which often precipitates lethal encounters with humans.  
  • Overall this year, grizzly bears numbers in the GYE were down, as was the number of females with cubs—probably due in part to the devastating loss of 79 bears (13 % of the total population) in 2008. Other potential reasons include: (1) the effects of whitebark pine loss, which is known to increase rates of human-bear conflicts and (2) the relaxation of regulations in the wake of the removal of federal protections in 2007.

Glacier/NCDE

  • Allowable mortality thresholds were violated in 10 out of the last 15 years.  The level of malicious illegal killings is of particular concern in this ecosystem.  The “shoot, shovel and shut up” culture is still strong in corners of the Glacier Ecosystem, and law enforcement has been weak, in part due to lack of adequate resources. 

Selway/Bitterroot

  • The federal government has done essentially nothing for a decade to move towards restoring grizzlies to the largest wildland ecosystem remaining in the Northern Rockies.  Bears were extirpated there about 30 years ago, and a 1999 plan to reintroduce bears to this ecosystem was put on ice following the election of George Bush as president.  Leading experts have shown there is ample habitat to support a population of 400-600 grizzlies.  Recovery of grizzlies in the Selway/Bitterroot ecosystem would boost the health of grizzlies throughout the Northern Rockies, by providing ecological connections between the GYE and more robust populations in Canada.

Cabinet Yaak and Selkirks

  • The federal government continues to drag its feet in developing new, better habitat and roads standards for grizzlies following successful litigation brought by conservation groups three years ago.  The future of these tiny remnant populations relies on a major effort to protect and restore grizzly bear habitat.  This means that significant work is needed to close and obliterate unnecessary roads, thereby reducing the frequency of bear-human conflicts and poaching.  To date, agency leadership and commitment on this issue have been lacking. 

Alberta

  • Alberta’s grizzly bear population, which includes part of the Glacier population in the U.S., continues to decline.  Recent numbers indicate there may be as few as 500-700 bears remaining in the entire province, in seven increasingly isolated and fragmented populations.  Without strong legal protections, such as those afforded in the U.S. by the Endangered Species Act, Alberta grizzly bears will be in increasingly dire straits.  Indeed, without a major commitment to recover these grizzly populations – unlikely in the current political climate – their future looks grim.  This is also bad news for the U.S. bears that live in the ecosystems along the U.S./Canada border.

THE UGLY

The Tragic Fates of 3 Grizzlies

  • Maximus (Bear #7273) was an 800-pound grizzly bear, 7.5 feet tall, thought to be the second largest grizzly bear ever captured in Montana history.  He was shot and left to rot in a pasture east of the Rocky Mountain Front last summer on Dupuyer Creek.  The case is under investigation, and the reward amount for information relating to the case continues to climb. 
  • Grand Teton National Park’s Grizzly 615.  Bear 615 was one of three offspring of the famed grizzly bear #399, who raised a set of triplet cubs in Grand Teton Park near Jackson Lake Lodge over the past few years.  This bear family gave thousands of park visitors the thrill of a lifetime, as they were able to watch her forage, nurse, and play with her cubs at a fairly close but safe range.  Bear 615 was killed by a hunter in October 2009 near Jackson while feeding on a moose carcass.  The hunter, who was not carrying bear spray, shot her from 40 yards away despite the fact that the bear was not behaving aggressively.  The hunter was charged with taking a grizzly bear without a license.
  • The Old Man Lake Bear (and cub).  At 17 years old, the “Old Man Lake” grizzly female was killed by Glacier National Park officials, and one of her cubs died in a subsequent accident involving tranquillizers.  Although this bear family had frequented trails and campgrounds, it had never threatened people.  The treatment by Glacier Park of this bear and her cubs stands in stark contrast to Grand Teton’s bear #399 and her cubs, which were carefully watched over by a volunteer Park Service collaborative called the “Bear Brigade,” who were dedicated to keeping both people and bears safe.

Two New Mine proposals: Last Nails in the Coffin for Cabinet Yaak Grizzlies

Picture two new major industrialized mining zones – roads, heavy equipment, power lines and noise – on both sides of the very narrow Cabinet Mountains in essential grizzly bear habitat.  On the east side of the Cabinet Yaak ecosystem, a new mine is being proposed—about one mile as the crow flies from another mine proposal on the west side of this tiny mountain range.  (This mine has been challenged successfully in court previously, and another lawsuit is still pending.)  Cabinet Yaak bear numbers have already been declining due to excessive human-caused mortality, habitat loss and fragmentation.  Development of either mine will be devastating to the last grizzly bears of this fragile population, by severing the southern third of the mountain range from the northern section.

The Collapse of Two Key Foods in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)

The vast whitebark pine forests of the GYE are turning bright red, then grey, as they die at unprecedented rates due to the effects of global warming, which has allowed the mountain pine beetle to flourish at higher elevations.  Adding insult to injury is an introduced pathogen, white pine blister rust, which is killing whitebark pine throughout its range.  Leading experts believe whitebark pine will become functionally extinct in the GYE in just five to seven years. 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, previously one of the mainstays for grizzly bears in early spring in the tributaries around Yellowstone Lake, have all but disappeared as a bear food due to combined efforts of global warming, drought, and a non-native predator, lake trout.

THE ABSURD

 Gaining Grizzly Protections Means Losing Them – Huh?

“The direct result of the court decision [to restore federal endangered species protections] to Yellowstone grizzly bears…will increase loss of secure habitat, increase mortality risk and displacement of grizzly bears on the 746,240 acres [in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem].”  This statement was made by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Chris Servheen in a July 2009 declaration submitted to the Federal District Court in Missoula.  In an interview by the Jackson Hole News and Guide in October 2009, Servheen declined to characterize the degree of risk and said that it was impossible to quantify.  So let’s get this straight: the federal agency responsible for recovering endangered species is now saying federal protections actually weaken safeguards for imperiled species, such as Yellowstone’s grizzlies?

“Bear feeding frenzy” film hoax

In a faked documentary, “Bear Feeding Frenzy,” aired by the Discovery Channel, former soap star Chris Douglas posed in a “predator proof” plexi-glass box in the fenced bear pen at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center, with a mannequin tied on the side.  The penned grizzlies were taught to maul the mannequin, break into a car and tear down tents as the star yelled “hey bear, hey bear.”  This footage aired alongside clips of wild bears along the Russian River, in Katmai and elsewhere in the wilds in Alaska.  So what will television NOT do to fabricate controversy?

Bar talk equals bear science in Alberta   

After spending $2.4 million to assess the size of the Alberta grizzly bear population through state-of-the-art DNA census techniques using bear hair, which found much lower grizzly numbers than some expected, in May 2009 Alberta’s Sustainable Resource Development Director Ted Morton bailed on the research project just as it neared completion.  He then announced that the province will accept anecdotal evidence from hunting groups to help decide the fate of the Alberta grizzly bear population.  Hunting groups are hoping that their anecdotes will be accepted as good reasons for again allowing grizzly bear hunting in Alberta.  (The hunt had been halted when researchers showed low and declining numbers.)  Leading researchers believe that as few as 600 or so grizzlies remain in the province in seven increasingly isolated populations.

LESSONS FROM 2009: A BEAR PRAYER FOR 2010

There is much to be learned from the example of Yellowstone National Park and its heroic and successful efforts to eliminate attractants and significantly reduce human-bear conflicts.  Similarly, the fact that grizzlies have been able to move again eastward from the foothills of the Rocky Mountain Front is testimony to people’s tolerance as well as skillful management.  Using these examples as models, communities throughout the Northern Rockies should consider how they too can eliminate bear attractants and keep people and bears safe.  This will become increasingly important as human pressures mount in the Northern Rockies, and as the distribution and abundance of key foods like whitebark pine change as a result of warming temperatures.  In the future, bears will need the protection of more space, not less, to compensate for changes in bear foods as well as human developments.

In some areas, restoration of degraded habitat will also become more important to keeping healthy grizzly bear populations on the landscape.  Rigorous programs to close and obliterate unnecessary roads and improve habitat security for the Cabinet Yaak/Selkirk bear populations are essential.  And the two mine proposals in the Cabinet Yaak must be prohibited if this tiny population is to have a chance to survive.

In the end, grizzly bears will only remain in the lower 48 states if we reduce rates of human-caused mortality, learn to share their habitat with more compassion and understanding, and save the wildlands they depend on.

]]> Bear Tales and Some Grizzly Secrets tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.5019 2009-12-30T22:27:07Z 2010-01-09T18:10:40Z Louisa Willcox Everyone who lives around grizzly bears or visits bear country winds up with a few stories to tell.  And who is not fascinated by an animal that can fish with its feet and can’t get enough back scratching?  Following are a few of the best stories and new science tidbits from 2009:

  • Bear in the basement.  In May, a group of Hutterites cornered a 300-pound bear in the basement of a building in their colony near Choteau, Montana, and at 10-15 feet away, snapped pictures of it.  The bear had been chased into the basement by the colony’s border collies.  “It was actually pretty cool,” said Teresa Housen, member of the Hutterite colony.  “He was just sitting there like a little teddy bear.  He actually was cute.”  The episode ended safely after state game officials tranquilized the bear, hauled it out of the basement with the help of the Hutterites, and moved it back to the mountains.
  • Northern Wanderer.  On June 18th, a grizzly bear was spotted near Sachs Harbor, on the southern coast of Banks Island, in the northernmost Northwest Territories.  Although residents of this remote arctic hamlet were used to seeing polar bears, they had not seen a grizzly bear there before.  The bear would have had to cross the sea ice to Banks Island.  Resident Samantha Lucas told CBC that “it’s the first time in her 42 years of living there that a grizzly came to town.”
  • Sarah Palin’s survival tips learned from grizzlies.  In July 2009, Mother Jones reported that Alaska’s former Governor Sarah Palin tweeted about survival tips she had picked from a grizzly bear.  “[M]uch you see in wild territory incl. amazing creature w/mamma bear’s guttural instinct to protect and prov’d for her young; she sees danger? She brazenly rises on strong hind legs, growls ‘DON’T TOUCH MY CUBS’, and the species survives.”  That is, unless “mamma bear” is shot for appearing to be aggressive towards humans.
  • Bear back-scratching yields data on grizzly population.  In Glacier National Park, Kate Kendall, a USGS scientist who has led a major monitoring effort of the Northern Continental Divide grizzly bear population, has been taking advantage of the grizzly’s irresistible urge to scratch its back on trees.  Collecting hair samples left behind on “rub trees” is adding additional insight to the health of the Glacier bear population, allowing scientists to assess whether the population is stable, increasing or declining.  Nearly 5,000 rub trees were monitored in 2004, and a new study will reassess these sites in 2009.  If the dataset from the sampling program proves to be a reliable indicator of the population status, it will be far less costly than the $4.8 million spent on DNA survey methods to assess the health of the Glacier bear population. 
  • Fancy Footwork.  Last year, a BBC film crew shot footage of grizzlies in coastal British Columbia using deft footwork underwater to shove salmon from deep pools into shallow water, where they are easier to catch.  Documenting behavior never before caught on film, this footage showed that grizzlies can use their feet to help them catch fish without getting their ears wet.  Wildlife cameraman Jeff Turner said, “most bears will do anything to avoid getting their ears wet…they hate it.”  Previous efforts to use remotely operated cameras to document bears’ underwater footwork had been thwarted, when the bears bit through the camera cables.  “This is the first time anyone has really seen what they are doing underwater,” Turner said.
]]> 57,000 say: stop using deadly predator poisons tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4879 2009-12-11T17:30:33Z 2009-12-21T13:30:49Z The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services agency is in dire need of reform-- particularly when it comes to killing predators, which play key ecological roles across the American landscape. Wildlife Services should change its outdated mode of operation to... Louisa Willcox The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services agency is in dire need of reform-- particularly when it comes to killing predators, which play key ecological roles across the American landscape. Wildlife Services should change its outdated mode of operation to be more transparent, and scientifically and economically justified. The agency should also adopt an approach that emphasizes non-lethal practices to avoid and address problems. The new approach must put the public interest -- not a few private agricultural interests -- front and center.

Wildlife Services can immediately take a big step in the right direction by ceasing the use of two deadly predator poisons that are unnecessary, dangerous to people as well as animals, and environmentally destructive. Primarily used at the request of private livestock interests, these poisons not only waste taxpayers' money, they also damage publicly owned wildlife.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has the authority to stop this deadly practice.

That's why we just delivered more than 57,000 letters from NRDC members and activists to Secretary Vilsack, asking him to halt the use of these predator poisons by Wildlife Services. Specifically, NRDC and our members and activists are asking the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ban the use of the following poisons:

  • Sodium cyanide is placed in spring-loaded devices topped with bait lures, known as M-44s. When an animal tugs on the bait, a spring shoots a pellet of sodium cyanide into the animal's mouth.

Most often used to kill coyotes, M-44s are indiscriminate and just as likely to kill non-problem animals -- those that haven't attacked livestock -- as "problem" animals. They embody what scientists have called the "sledgehammer approach" to predator management. Wildlife Services's approach to killing predators is large-scale and largely "preventative." Driving this heavy-handed approach is an outdated and scientifically unjustified philosophy that the fewer predators on the landscape the better, and that what is good for a few private agricultural interests is good for the public as a whole.

Making matters worse, M-44s kill hundreds of non-target animals each year, including wolves, badgers, bears, bobcats, foxes, dogs, birds, and even people's pets. And, according to EPA records, five Wildlife Services's employees and at least five unsuspecting citizens have been exposed to sodium cyanide after triggering devices or coming into contact with poisoned pets.

  • Compound 1080, or sodium fluoroacetate is placed in collars, strapped onto the necks of sheep or goats, that spill the poison when punctured. Safety and security are the biggest problems with using this substance. Compound 1080 is so deadly it has been outlawed in two states, is used in only 11 states, and is banned in many other countries. There is no antidote to Compound 1080 exposure, and carcasses contaminated by the substance must be handled as hazardous waste.

Death by Compound 1080 is horrific, painful, and lengthy (usually between 3 and 15 hours). Exposure can result in cardiac failure, progressive failure of the central nervous system, or respiratory arrest following severe prolonged convulsions.

Especially disturbing is that Wildlife Services has never evaluated the true costs of these practices, in terms of threats to both human safety and publicly owned wildlife, against the perceived benefits accrued to a few private agricultural interests. This agency has been able to avoid public scrutiny, in large measure, because it is protected by big agriculture. It is also no accident that this agency has changed its name a dozen times since its inception over 100 years ago -- recently adopting an Orwellian name that sounds benign, or even positive for wildlife and the public interest.

Public pressure is building on USDA and Wildlife Services to end these old-fashioned and hazardous practices and to put the spotlight on an agency that has too long flown below the radar. Other conservation organizations, such as Wild Earth Guardians and Predator Defense, as well as numerous local grassroots groups, spend countless hours raising awareness about the damaging and wasteful practices of Wildlife Services, and demonstrating that more predator friendly approaches to resolving conflicts are practical and effective.

We hope the Agriculture Secretary will respond to our members' and activists' requests by banning sodium cyanide and Compound 1080. Following that action, the next steps for USDA are to take a long, hard look at Wildlife Services's other practices and to provide an opportunity for the public to decide what Wildlife Services programs and practices are truly in the public interest.

 

]]> Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Threats Underestimated tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4788 2009-12-01T23:17:38Z 2009-12-11T18:52:53Z In the November 23rd Salt Lake Tribune article "Yellowstone grizzly deaths down: future uncertain," statements by government officials dismissed the massive threats to whitebark pine trees, the primary engine driving the health of Yellowstone's grizzly bear population. The impacts of... Louisa Willcox In the November 23rd Salt Lake Tribune article "Yellowstone grizzly deaths down: future uncertain," statements by government officials dismissed the massive threats to whitebark pine trees, the primary engine driving the health of Yellowstone's grizzly bear population. The impacts of declining whitebark pine on Yellowstone's grizzlies were at the heart of U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's September ruling that restored endangered species protections to Yellowstone grizzlies.

The Yellowstone grizzly's heavy dependence on whitebark pine seeds is unique among the world's grizzly bears. Yet since around 2001, warming temperatures at high elevations have sparked an unprecedented pine beetle outbreak that has killed much of Yellowstone's whitebark pine forests — forests that did not co-evolve with pine beetles. Leading experts predict the functional extinction of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 5 to 7 years.

Although Yellowstone grizzlies are omnivores, it is this tiny, fatty seed of the whitebark pine, conveniently cached by the red squirrel, that drives grizzly bear reproductive success. And, just as important, by keeping bears foraging in remote, high places, whitebark pine cone crops reduce human-bear conflicts and excessive grizzly bear mortalities.

Consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) defense of its decision to delist Yellowstone grizzlies in 2007, FWS Grizzly Recovery Coordinator Chris Servheen is quoted, saying that the threats to whitebark pine "had been overstated" and "bears could adapt." But FWS has shown no evidence that Yellowstone grizzlies can find alternative foods that will replace the rich whitebark pine seeds that provide needed calories before hibernation.

FWS' conclusions are contradicted by 30 years of scientific research. For example, a 2005 Interagency Grizzly Bear report stated that "should whitebark pine decline rapidly, we speculate that we would witness a scenario similar to what occurred when dumps were closed in Yellowstone National Park: more management problems... with a substantial increase in measurable bear mortality." And, in 1999, U.S. Geologic Survey scientist Dr. David Mattson found that "declines in abundance of critical high quality foods will precipitate...declines in lifetime reproduction of females with potentially major related declines in densities."

In attempting to justify its claim that grizzlies can adapt to other foods without negative consequences, FWS cited only one scientific source in its delisting decision. This paper, however, actually supported the opposite point: "in years of poor pine seed production, bears respond by substituting low-quality foods...and experience a substantial increased risk of direct human-caused mortality due to their movement into more populated areas." The court record fully supports Judge Molloy's conclusion that there was a "disconnect between the science and FWS' conclusions."

With the collapse of whitebark pine and high grizzly mortality levels over the last six years, there is no rational justification for Grizzly Bear Study Team Director Chuck Schwartz's quote: "last year was just one of those bad years, and it looks like the good years are coming back." Reality is that allowable mortality limits have been violated in 4 of the last 5 years — and we are one bear away from breaching these limits this year as well.

It is critical that all involved with Yellowstone grizzly recovery efforts immediately acknowledge the collapse of whitebark pine and its implications for Yellowstone's grizzlies. We must also redouble our efforts to save one of the most treasured icons of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. To compensate for whitebark pine loss, this means expanding the areas where grizzlies are allowed to live, and increasing efforts to reduce bear mortalities — as well as creating an honest dialogue with all concerned about how to ensure a healthy future for the Great Bear.

]]> Public is steadfast in their support for stronger Yellowstone grizzly bear protections tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4772 2009-11-25T20:13:53Z 2009-12-05T16:02:31Z 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... Louisa Willcox 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


 

]]> Does Agency Cynicism Serve Wolves, Science, or the Public Interest? tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4741 2009-11-20T22:58:32Z 2009-11-30T19:02:46Z A recent meeting of the Montana Chapter of the Society of Conservation Biology showcased talks by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, Ed Bangs, and the Montana Wolf Project Manager, Carolyn Sime. What struck... Louisa Willcox A recent meeting of the Montana Chapter of the Society of Conservation Biology showcased talks by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, Ed Bangs, and the Montana Wolf Project Manager, Carolyn Sime. What struck me most about their presentations was their cynicism.

While the purpose of the conference was to discuss the application of science in conservation, Sime and Bangs chose to speak mostly about symbolism. Both talks implied that it is impossible to pursue useful scientific inquiry or to improve wolf-management practices because of the symbolism surrounding wolves.

Bangs introduced his talk by saying, "Wolves and wolf management have nothing to do with each other — it all has to do with symbolism."

Really? Can't science be used to help inform ranchers and others about how to reduce conflicts?

Then, someone asked Bangs a question about what the most effective ways to deal with wolf/livestock conflicts are. His response? "Divine intervention."

Huh? Have we really learned nothing about deterring wolf/livestock conflicts in the 14 years since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone and central Idaho — and in the many hundreds of years of humans living in close proximity to these animals across Canada and Europe? Can FWS's head wolf manager, with decades of scientific experience, provide no insights on how to avoid conflicts?

One puzzling aspect of the wolf arena is that FWS has not tried to systematically or comprehensively analyze the complex nature of wolf/livestock interactions in an effort to reduce conflicts. Both Bangs and Sime suggested that the existing research being done on wolves was adequate — when, in fact, it is absent in the context of perhaps the most important question facing wolf recovery today: how can we use scientific and other information to avoid conflicts and reduce livestock losses?

This is in contrast to Yellowstone grizzly bear management, where data on conflict and mortalities are collected, evaluated and released to the public annually. The benefit of such a system is that the public — ranchers, sportsmen, landowners, recreationists and others — can see the patterns of the problems. Knowledge of these patterns, combined with mountains of readily available information about how to avoid bear conflicts (sanitation, bear spray, proper handling of food in the backcountry), helps focus efforts to avoid problems proactively. (Grizzly bear management is far from perfect, but these data-gathering efforts have helped reduce conflicts in what had formerly been black holes for bear mortality.)

For example, the Yellowstone grizzly bear conflict data show that the number one human/grizzly bear conflict area over the last few years has been around Gardiner, Montana. Conflicts there primarily involve human food attractants and a lack of bear-resistant garbage containers. Right now, we at NRDC are working with Bear Awareness Gardiner, the U.S. Forest Service, and others to increase the number of bear-resistant garbage containers for residents. It's a collaborative effort using techniques that have worked elsewhere, and we are optimistic that, together, we will make progress here.

If there is no systematic collection and assessment of data on conflicts and mortalities, it is impossible to learn from experience and improve the day-to-day practice of living with large carnivores. Wildlife managers, ranchers and others involved in the wolf arena are therefore collectively groping in the dark. In this context, calling upon "divine intervention" makes sense.

This is not to say that there is a lack of individuals inside and outside the agencies working 24/7 to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts; indeed, there are many working — quietly and without fanfare — to avoid problems by understanding what wolves are doing on the landscapes where they make their living. One classic success story involves management of sheep around Idaho's Phantom Wolf Pack, which resulted in a major reduction of depredations thanks to a collaborative effort by federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations.

In the case of wolf/livestock interactions, there is no silver bullet to avoid conflicts everywhere. Wolves are smart and curious, and there are big differences within this region — geographically, ecologically, and in terms of prey dynamics and grazing practices. Thus, a wide array of tools, including electric fences, guard dogs, and penning livestock at night, can be helpful in various contexts. And there may be other techniques, like placing wolf urine on scent posts (communicating to wolves that the area is already occupied by other wolves), which might work in some circumstances, but have yet to be tested.

The good work that many people around the region are pursuing to coexist with wolves would be greatly strengthened if the lead agencies — Wildlife Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state fish and game agencies — abandoned their cynicism and, instead, collaborated with each other and those affected by wolves, shared existing conflicts data, and systematically analyzed the data to better understand the underlying drivers of the conflicts.

All stakeholders, particularly landowners and livestock operators, should be able to obtain maps of wolf conflicts with information on the timing and nature of the conflicts. There are many livestock operators and grazing associations that would certainly put this information to good use in their own management practices; who wouldn't try to avoid conflicts if they had more knowledge and a better set of tools to do so?

Finally, in her slide presentation, "Cascades of Symbolism: Where Does the Science Fit into Montana Wolf Conservation?," Carolyn Sime hardly talked about science (but rather symbolism and values) and thus failed to address her own question. At one point, she displayed a picture of a judge throwing a spitball down on the head of a pleader with the subtitle, "And you wonder why people hate activist judges." This was an obvious dig at U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, who ruled last year that FWS's original delisting proposal was inadequate, and, in a September 8, 2009 ruling, indicated that NRDC and other conservation groups are likely to prevail on the merits of our current challenge of FWS's decision to delist Northern Rockies wolves.

Not only was Sime's remark fundamentally disrespectful of the judiciary, it undermined the principles of democracy, which rely on checks and balances among different branches of government. And it is hard to imagine how such statements serve the broader public interest regarding the management of wolves in the state. Such unnecessary remarks only serve to further inflame an already too controversial subject.

Both Sime's and Bangs' presentations relied on rhetoric about values, symbolism, and collaboration, without defining what they currently mean, or should mean, in the context of wolf recovery. They also failed to present their views or any relevant science on alternative ways to improve wolf management. Their rhetoric was ultimately unrelated to the real-world challenges of coexisting with wolves. Could it be that its purpose was to preserve the current management system and the status quo at the expense of serious scientific inquiry aimed at solving problems on the ground with wolves and moving recovery forward?

We at NRDC believe we can achieve full wolf recovery in the region, but public displays of cynicism by key leaders are counterproductive — and will only delay recovery while contributing to further polarization in the debate. We need the leaders in wolf management to sow the seeds of compassion and respect for the public they serve, to support and strengthen the creative work already being done by many to address wolf-livestock conflicts, and to become constructive participants in a truly democratic process to reach durable wolf recovery.

 

]]> Yellowstone grizzly prospects improve as relisting ruling is upheld tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4711 2009-11-18T20:33:38Z 2009-11-28T15:59:14Z Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy wisely denied the Department of Justice's efforts to reverse his September 21st decision that restored endangered species protections to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. The Yellowstone grizzly is still at risk: global warming poses... Louisa Willcox Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy wisely denied the Department of Justice's efforts to reverse his September 21st decision that restored endangered species protections to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. The Yellowstone grizzly is still at risk: global warming poses a massive new threat to the bear's survival by facilitating an attack on an essential food source. Warming at high elevations has sparked a massive pine beetle outbreak that has resulted in the death of more than half of the ecosystem's whitebark pine forests. These forests are also threatened by a non-native pathogen, white pine blister rust, which is infecting an increasing number of whitebark pine.

The seeds of whitebark pine are critical to the health of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Although Yellowstone grizzlies eat everything from ants to buffalo, it is this tiny, fatty seed of the whitebark pine, conveniently cached by the red squirrel, that drives female reproductive success. And, perhaps just as important, by keeping bears foraging in remote, high places, whitebark pine forests help prevent human-bear conflicts and excessive mortalities.

Whitebark pine has been collapsing in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem — and, indeed, throughout its entire range — over the last 7 to 10 years. Its functional extinction in Greater Yellowstone is expected in 5 to 7 years, according to some experts. But by removing federal protections for the Yellowstone grizzly bears, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) turned its back on the problem — and mountains of excellent science — claiming that bears will find alternative foods. FWS, however, did not show one shred of evidence that those alternative foods would be sufficient substitutes for the high-quality, fatty whitebark pine seed that is so important to grizzlies before they hibernate.

Judge Molloy found that the best available science on whitebark pine contradicted FWS's conclusion that whitebark pine doesn't matter. In yesterday's court order, Judge Molloy wrote, "As discussed in the Court's Order, the studies [in the court record] contradict [FWS's] position that decreases in whitebark pine do not pose a threat to the survival of the Yellowstone DPS [distinct population segment]. Every study suggests the opposite: whitebark pine availability has an impact on grizzly bear fecundity and mortality, and declines in whitebark pine are tied to declines in the population numbers. It is this disconnect between the science and [FWS's] conclusions that the Court relied on in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff... Defendants have not established that the Court's decision regarding whitebark pines was clearly erroneous or that the Court made a factual mistake in reviewing the agency's decision regarding whitebark pines. Therefore, the Court will not alter or amend the judgment with respect to whitebark pine."

Judge Molloy also found that the established regulatory systems were not adequate to protect the grizzly bear population after delisting. The excessive number of dead bears in recent years is testimony to the need for federal protections. In 4 of the last 5 years, mortality thresholds have been violated. And several weeks before grizzlies will finally go to sleep for the winter, we are just a single male bear away from once again violating allowable mortality thresholds.

At the interagency grizzly bear meeting in Jackson, Wyoming, a few weeks ago, a number of managers expressed denial and anger at Judge Molloy's ruling, although there was no discussion about the substance of the ruling or the Judge's reasoning. In the 1970s, Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross developed a framework to summarize how people deal differently with shocking news, such as death. She called these the "five stages of grief." The stages start with Denial, proceed to Anger, then Bargaining, then Depression and finally Acceptance. Managers stuck at the denial and anger stages must quickly move toward acceptance and constructive action, while there is still time to ensure a healthy future for the Yellowstone grizzly bears.

Listening to and incorporating the many good suggestions made at the recent Jackson meeting would be a good start. For example, Teton County attorney Steve Weichman suggested that state legislation requiring all permittees on public lands (hunters, anglers, outfitters, etc.) to carry bear spray in grizzly country be enacted. This is smart policy, since bear spray has been proven to be far more effective than firearms in ending human-bear conflicts, and less deadly for all parties. Montana BLM district manager Tim Bozorth suggested that the grizzly bear committee submit comments to the Agricultural Research Service, recommending that the practice of grazing by the last remaining bands of sheep (owned by federal taxpayers) within the grizzly bear recovery zone be reevaluated and alternatives explored to avoid grizzly/livestock conflicts in a key corridor between Yellowstone and other grizzly ecosystems. (Unfortunately, Bozorth's suggestion was rejected when a majority of the committee deferred to the wishes of a single member, a county commissioner with an ideological, anti-bear ax to grind -- the incident reflects the dysfunctionality of the current grizzly management system).

NRDC Wildlife Advocate Matt Skoglund suggested that additional information be collected from big-game hunters regarding encounters with bears, which would lead to a more thorough understanding of bear/hunter interactions (what works? what doesn't?) and help reduce bear-hunter conflicts. (Today, hunters are the number 1 cause of grizzly bear mortalities.) Poet Lyn Dalebout called for more reflection and appreciation of the spiritual connection we have with bears when making decisions about their future; bear management is not just about the science or the law, but our personal relationships with these animals.

But taking action on such suggestions requires a complete reconstitution of the public process around grizzly bear management. We must find a different way forward to promote civil discourse and the common interest to save one of the most treasured icons of the Greater Yellowstone: its magnificent grizzly bears.

 

]]> Are the Hills Alive? tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4582 2009-11-02T23:32:00Z 2009-11-12T19:19:02Z This article originally appeared as a guest editorial in the Jackson Hole News and Guide on Ocotober 28, 2009. It's impossible to drive over Togwotee Pass or hike in the wilds of the Gros Ventres or Absarokas these days without... Louisa Willcox This article originally appeared as a guest editorial in the Jackson Hole News and Guide on Ocotober 28, 2009.

It's impossible to drive over Togwotee Pass or hike in the wilds of the Gros Ventres or Absarokas these days without seeing vast red, dying forests of pine trees — testimony to the rapid changes underway with rising temperatures.  Warmer winters mean that mountain pine beetles, which have coevolved for millennia with lower elevation lodgepole pine and other western forests, are now flourishing in high-elevation whitebark pine forests. 

 

Aerial view of Gros Ventres Range

Whitebark pine trees are critical to the ecological integrity of Yellowstone's high country.  By pioneering in harsh alpine soils, they serve as "nurse" trees, protecting other conifers and allowing them to grow.  With nutritious, high-fat seeds, they provide important food for many species of wildlife, including Clark's Nutcrackers, red squirrels and grizzly bears.  Their shade also slows the rate of snowmelt in the spring, helping maintain healthy fisheries and watersheds.

What is now happening to whitebark pine is shocking.  A massive outbreak of mountain pine beetle, combined with an introduced pathogen, white pine blister rust, is killing whitebark at an unprecedented rate in much of the tree's range.  Although there have been previous mountain pine beetle epidemics during warming periods in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, especially for a short time in the 1930s, nothing compares to the scale of what is happening right now in these forests.

The severity of the current whitebark pine crisis has prompted a new and unique collaboration during the past few years among agencies, citizen scientists and conservationists, including the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, EcoFlight (an environmental aviation organization), GIS consultants at Geo Graphics, and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).  Collectively, we have spent countless hours in EcoFlight's plane and on foot, assessing the condition of whitebark pine.  This collaborative approach was critical, because the mountain pine beetle outbreak in the GYE is killing whitebark pine so quickly that no one, until now, had an accurate picture of what is dead or alive.  And nobody could take on this enormous task alone.

When we started thinking about this project, we were not sure one could assess mountain pine beetle damage in whitebark pine flying at 13,000 feet and 100 miles per hour.  But with a small amount of funding from NRDC, we launched an experimental project last year with retired U.S. Forest Service beetle expert Dr. Jesse Logan, pilot Bruce Gordon of EcoFlight, and Wally MacFarlane of Geo Graphics.  The results proved to be compelling and very accurate at a landscape scale. With the help and leadership of the U.S. Forest Service, this year we were able to build on the success of the experimental project, completing the first-ever ecosystem-wide aerial survey of the impact on whitebark from mountain pine beetle.

What we found, from the air and ground-truthing efforts on foot, is devastating.  While the final results are not yet in, it appears that only a relatively small portion of the GYE's whitebark pine remains healthy. Whitebark pine is predicted by some experts to be functionally extinct in the GYE in just 5-7 years.  The consequences of the massive loss of whitebark pine will have repercussions throughout the entire ecosystem -- for people, wildlife and watersheds -- for many, many years.

What is happening to whitebark pine in Yellowstone country is yet another compelling argument that we all need to redouble efforts to turn down the thermostat — fast.

Despite the ongoing tragedy with whitebark pine in and around our country's first national park, working collaboratively with agencies, citizen scientists and individuals who share a common vision and concern about the future of whitebark and the health of the GYE has been heartening.  We give special thanks to the U.S. Forest Service for providing necessary funds, and to the family of "whitebark warriors" who did the work.

This successful collaboration can also serve as a model for how to pursue conservation in other areas in increasingly challenging times: by working together, we can accomplish what none of us can do alone.  And in this collaborative way, we will be better equipped to build a broad-based constituency that might just be strong enough to protect and restore what remains of whitebark forests -- and the awe-inspiring Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem which we so cherish.

]]> Meet The Beetles and Folks Who Study Them tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4364 2009-10-09T00:28:43Z 2009-10-18T21:18:54Z Louisa Willcox

(Left to right:  Wally Macfarlane, Yours Truly, Liz Davy, and Willie Kern)

They flew in from all over the world: Switzerland, Finland, Greece, Italy, Austria, Slovakia, and Canada, as well as many parts of the U.S.  Like the beetles they study, these top forest researchers, members of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations, aggregated in Jackson, Wyoming, last week to feed on each other's knowledge and new findings about the amazingly adaptable and effective pine beetle and other "forest pests."  Climate change and its interactions with fire and water availability, population dynamics, and genetics were all hot topics of discussion.

The challenges are incredibly diverse.  I learned about Ambrosia beetles in South Africa. Bark beetles in Scots pine in the Italian Alps.  Spruce beetles in the Czech Republic and other European forests.  Southern pine beetles in Honduras.  Ash borers (introduced from Asia) wreaking havoc in Michigan.  And, of course, there was plenty of buzz about the current mountain pine beetle epidemics in lodgepole and whitebark pine in the U.S. and Canada.

While the news was mostly grim, the group was anything but.  There was a spirit of congeniality and enthusiasm as each speaker discussed his or her work and the implications of the sometimes breathtaking changes underway in forests around the world.  Unlike some of the science organizations I have been around, this one was respectful, curious, probing, smart, knitted together perhaps by a shared sense of urgency about the speed of the changes taking place.  Some were willing to try anything, including spraying the chemical verbenone, a pheromone, in tiny flakes over entire forests from helicopters to beat back beetles.  No one laughed at this idea, for what is happening to many of the forests is no laughing matter.

Right now, the functional loss of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) appears imminent.  As I listened to the presentation by my friend and colleague Wally Macfarlane, who provided a preliminary report on our collaborative assessment of whitebark pine health in the GYE, a requiem to whitebark pine, a song written and sung by Beth McIntosh at an NRDC event last spring, rang in my ears.  It was a song about loss and letting go.

Wally is one of the true whitebark warriors.  He has put in countless hours in an airplane, on foot, and behind a computer screen to document what is happening to whitebark pine in the GYE.  This team of warriors includes one of the world's foremost beetle experts,  Dr. Jesse Logan, pilot Bruce Gordon, consultant Willie Kern, interns Dena Adler and Colin Peacock, U.S. Forest Service Silviculturalist Liz Davy, National Park Service forest ecologist Nancy Bockino, Dr. Diana Tomback, as well as citizen scientists like outfitters Meredith and Tory Taylor, Robert Hoskins, climber/author Tom Turiano, Forrest McCarthy, and others inside agencies and out, who are trying desperately to learn what is happening to whitebark and do something about it -- or at least tell the tragic tale of its demise.

Wally, Willie, Jesse and others are still wading through the mountains of data collected this summer in the first-ever full aerial assessment of whitebark pine in the GYE, a collaborative project with NRDC, the U.S. Forest Service, Ecoflight and Geo/Graphics. Wally gave a preview of the results so far.  In stark contrast to the claims in the 2007 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting rule that only 16% of whitebark pine had been affected by mountain pine beetle in the GYE, Wally showed that only about that much whitebark appears still healthy in the ecosystem.  The reason?  The combined effects of climate change, which is allowing the beetles to thrive in the high elevation whitebark forests, and an introduced pathogen, white pine blister rust.

On the third day of the conference, over 50 conference participants traveled by bus up to Togwottee Pass in the Southern Absarokas, a "ground zero" area for beetle activity in whitebark pine, during what turned out to be the first big snowstorm of the fall.  Big wet flakes fell hard, and the otherwise spectacular view was obscured.  But people were in good spirits - it was clear as long as they have hatchets, foresters and entomologists have fun whatever the weather.  Here, they eagerly whacked dying whitebark, examining the complex galleries the beetle pupa had laid under the bark of the trees, as well as tiny white larvae and black adults, the size of a pencil head.  It is still hard for me to wrap my head around how these wee creatures, with typically one- to two-year life cycles, can take down massive, majestic whitebark that have stood here, some over a thousand years, feeding and sheltering elk, squirrels, Clarks nutcrackers, and of course, the Great Bear.  It just doesn't seem fair.

The conference organizers, Drs. Barbara Bentz and Diana Six, asked me to share some of what I know about the unique relationship between whitebark pine and Yellowstone grizzly population, which I have passionately advocated for over the past 25 years.  In Yellowstone, grizzlies rely more heavily on the seeds of stone pine (of which whitebark is a member) than any other grizzly population in the world.  While grizzlies eat a lot of things, from hornets to pond weed to buffalo, in Yellowstone whitebark is the key driver of female reproductive success.  And whitebark helps reduce grizzly bear mortality by concentrating them up high, in some of the most remote country in the ecosystem, and away from high densities of people during their fall feeding frenzy.  The consequences of a rapid loss of whitebark in the GYE is predicted by the federal Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team to resemble the closing of the Yellowstone dumps in 1969 and 1970, which pushed the Yellowstone grizzly population to the very brink of extinction (as few as 200 bears remained by the early 1980s, compared to 400-600 individuals today, after endangered species protections were applied for 32 years).

In my remarks, I built on a talk given by Jesse the day before about the history of the collapse of whitebark pine in Yellowstone.  He reported to the group on the recent court ruling that reestablished endangered species protections for Yellowstone grizzlies the week before, in part because of the arbitrary and irrational way in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had applied available scientific information on whitebark pine and its relationship to the future of the Yellowstone grizzly.  (In defending its decision to delist the grizzly, the Service had tried to downplay the role of whitebark as the engine driving the health of the population and ignore or distort existing information on the extent of the threats to these forests.)

Applause erupted from the audience.  My jaw dropped.  And then I realized that this group of researchers saw this victory as a vindication of science, and of the importance of the proper and accurate use of scientific information in the policy context.  Here was a group of scientists, many from countries with far weaker environmental laws than we have, who understood how critical it is to have laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires the use of the best scientific information available, and a judicial system with judges willing to enforce these laws.

May we never take this system or these laws for granted.  They have been responsible for saving species like the Yellowstone grizzly from extinction before, and fortunately, as of two weeks ago, ESA protections are again in place to keep the Great Bear healthy in an ecosystem where not just one, but two key foods (whitebark pine and Yellowstone cutthroat trout) have collapsed in the last few years.   

People from around the world, including this group of scientists, expect us in the United States to provide a model of rigorous and high quality science and a commitment to conservation.  If we can't get it right here with our nation's -- and the world's -- first national park, what kind of example will we set with endangered species recovery for the rest of the world?

(Liz Davy, Whitebark Warrior and U.S. Forest Service Silviculturalist with the Bridger Teton National Forest)

(Dr. Barbara Bentz, Mountain Pine Beetle Expert and Conference Organizer, U.S. Forest Service, Logan, Utah)

(Dr. Diana Six, University of Montana (holding brolly))

]]> Relisting Yellowstone grizzlies: breaking old ways, creating new possibilities tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4256 2009-09-29T17:33:15Z 2009-10-09T14:11:50Z Louisa Willcox The victory celebration piece I started last week on the relisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bear — a centerpiece of my work over the last 20 years — looks nothing like what you read now.  After 2 ½ years of holding our breath, as two challenges of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting decision ground their way through the legal process — and grizzlies died in droves — on Monday, September 21st, Judge Donald Molloy returned the Yellowstone grizzly bear to the endangered species list. 

This means that, right now, we have again: (1) federal government "look before you leap" oversight of potentially harmful activity to grizzly bears; (2) the requirement to use the best available science (including dealing honestly with the serious problem of whitebark pine loss); and (3) the "take" prohibition, which can result in severe penalties for poaching and harassing bears.  These and other components of the Endangered Species Act were vital to bringing the bear back from the brink of extinction, by reducing human-caused mortality and expanding their numbers and range.  And they are more important than ever, as grizzly mortalities mount, and key foods such as whitebark pine seeds and cutthroat trout collapse.

One of the lead attorneys on the case, my husband, Doug Honnold, and I have both gotten grizzled in the course of this multi-decade campaign, and you would think we might have celebrated that night.  (Calls from friends and colleagues sounded as if some corks had been popped elsewhere.)  But I had to pack for travel to a retreat the next day in Colorado. 

My recent days of contemplation and meditation gave me a different, more detached perspective about the nature of the battle over the Yellowstone grizzly bear, which has come to symbolize one of the fiercest, nastiest, most politicized, and personally vicious of any endangered species recovery effort anywhere.

The toxic climate around grizzlies got started in 1969 when pioneer grizzly researchers Frank and John Craighead were thrown out of Yellowstone National Park as thanks for their recommendations about how best to wean garbage-conditioned bears off human foods.  Since then, many other careers of good-hearted, well-meaning scientists have been sunk — the list is too long and tragic to name.  (One wound up in a Zen Monastery, sending me first her extensive bear research files showing the falsification of the data collected for her Masters thesis by her advisor.)  Science was manipulated and politicized extensively.  (For example, one U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion was rewritten to conclude that a proposed highway project would not harm bears, when its original author concluded it would.)  Scientists were punished for speaking truth to power.  A climate of fear, secrecy, and retribution prevailed in the bear management and research arenas. 

This pathological system is well documented in Todd Wilkinson's book Science under Siege.  And the underpinnings of this system are described in detail in Susan Clark's Ensuring Greater Yellowstone's Future: Choices for Leaders and Citizens.

Environmentalists, including myself, were thrown out of meetings that had previously been declared public.  And it wasn't just us conservationists who were kept in the dark, excluded from discussions about key decisions.  A number of ranchers were similarly upset, confused and felt powerless: the compensation they received for the value of livestock killed by bears was, in many cases, all the help they got — little assistance was given beforehand to prevent problems.  The broader public was frustrated because they weren't being heard, and they knew that the very process of democracy had been subverted; for example, although 99% of the comments submitted on the draft delisting decision opposed delisting, the Bush administration went ahead and delisted bears anyway. 

No one felt respected.  The people involved in the debate suffered, but so did the bears — shot mistakenly by black bear hunters over glazed donut baits.  Shot by frightened big game hunters when, sniffing the scent of dead elk, they ventured too close to camp.  Shot by agency personnel when they had become hooked on garbage and thus became a "safety hazard" to communities.  Shot when they came into conflict with people at higher rates because their main late-season food staple, whitebark pine seeds, collapsed due to mountain pine beetles, driven by warming temperatures.

At the same time, human population and development continued to increase in bear habitat, so bears had a harder and harder time staying away from people.  Grizzly mortalities climbed, breaching allowable levels in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008.  (They were also only one female bear shy of breaching mortality levels in 2007.)

All this suffering, by so many — human and animal — for so many years!  And who really won?  No one.  (In my earlier blog draft, I said "us" — conservationists and bears prevailed.  That is true, at some level, but not, I think now, from a larger perspective.) 

Civil discourse, the basis of a civil, democratic society, was lost in the course of twenty years of bureaucratic craving for power and control of the bear debate.  Ranchers and others lost faith that anyone was going to help resolve their conflicts with bears in practical ways.  Sportsmen lost trust in the government that had promised them a grizzly bear hunt.  Many conservationists lost too — some quarreled with each other, others burnt out, some gave up because of the poisonous contentiousness of the debate. 

With Judge Molloy's ruling, the agencies lost control of a situation they had sought so desperately to hold.  And in the end, I think we all lost, at some level, a recognition of how our lives are connected to each other and to the fate of grizzlies, which symbolize the health of the land itself.

But if we take an honest look at the history of bear management and where it has landed us, we can begin to see how the losses, grievous as they are, can also create new opportunities.

Sometimes situations have to be shattered completely for new opportunities to be born.  To create a new society capable of saving the grizzly and ourselves, the old ways need to be recognized as fundamentally unworkable.  

As of last week, Yellowstone grizzlies are back on the endangered species list and the results of the old ways of doing business have been repudiated in federal court. The system of regulatory mechanisms for managing grizzlies after delisting, the product of years of (nondemocratic) interagency negotiations, was thrown out as inadequate.  It is plain to see that the old system could not be more broken.

So, now just may be a perfect opportunity to create a dramatically different approach that has, at its core, learned the lessons of past mistakes.  It is hard to imagine a better time to transform the work of grizzly conservation into a new system characterized by human dignity, honesty, fairness, a commitment to the truth, and recognition of our interdependence.

The connection between the idea of transformation and bears has been with us for thousands of years. The grizzly itself has symbolized transformation from seeming death to new life.  Bear cubs are born in the dead and dark of winter.  (Born blind and 16 ounces, they are, proportionally to their future size as an adult, the tiniest of any animal at birth).  Maybe, starting with small seeds of change in how we treat each other, we can create a different kind of community adequate to face the many challenges facing bear recovery — climate change, energy development, transmission lines, and human population growth.

There is an old Native American story about how, in their winter dens, the Great Bear dreams the whole world into being, creating entire ecosystems, with aspen, hummingbirds, buffalo — creatures large and small, each with their unique and important roles to play.  It is said that in the spring, when the mother bear emerges from the den, trailed by her young ones, that all the other animals and plants celebrate, each in their own way.

It is now our turn to dream into being a different kind of society, one that honors grizzlies as well as our own wild spirits, which are also in danger of disappearing.  The process must start with recognizing that we are stuck and the current system, dominated by agency bureaucracies and power-oriented cultures, is not working from a variety of perspectives.  (I want to be clear here: I am not criticizing individuals in the agencies who have dedicated years of their lives to protecting bears — it's the system, not the individuals, which create and compound the problem.)  For those who did not already see this, Judge Molloy has made that point abundantly clear.

The next step is to create a new arena in which people with different views can have a real conversation about real issues and concerns, a conversation that is not orchestrated by agencies with agendas for specific political outcomes. With honesty and respect, we, the stakeholders in this debate, need to take a hard look at what has worked and what hasn't in bear conservation from different viewpoints, and explore how much common ground might exist between us. We might be surprised, not just at the level of agreement in principle, but in practice, such as sanitation and habitat protections.

Who knows?  We may find that many of us already share, at a core level, a similar vision of what is possible and necessary for bears and society to thrive.  We may also find that social transformation, like a bear cub, starts out small, but can grow into something strong, resilient, adaptive and intelligent.

For the sake of the threatened bear and us, such an experiment is worth a try — now, before another twenty contentious years pass, more frustration and polarization mounts, and more bears get caught in the crossfire.

]]> Yellowstone Grizzlies Need Federal Protection tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4151 2009-09-16T17:26:07Z 2009-09-26T13:54:59Z Louisa Willcox The article below appeared originally in the Missoulian August 10th and has been slightly revised. 

A July 17 Missoulian article on settlement discussions about lawsuits over the government's Yellowstone grizzly bear delisting decision included a statement by Hank Fischer of the National Wildlife Federation, a staunch defender of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting decision, who said that, "all of the recovery goals have been met and exceeded."

This is simply not true. In four out of the last five years, the government's own grizzly mortality limits were violated. These limits were breached in 2004, 2005 and 2006, before the bear was taken off the endangered species list in 2007, and in 2008 as well.

In 2008, mortalities were off the chart, when the government estimated that 79 grizzlies died in the Yellowstone ecosystem n more than 13 percent of the total population. In 2007, allowable limits would have been breached if one more female had died. These levels rival those that followed the closure of Yellowstone Park's dumps in 1969 n levels that in four years reduced the population by half and prompted the listing of the grizzly under the Endangered Species Act.

Limiting grizzly mortality is especially important because of the grizzlies' very low reproductive rates, and their vulnerability to human killing, which, along with habitat loss, have reduced grizzly bears to 1 percent of their former range in the lower-48 states. The death of even a few grizzlies, especially females, can mean the difference between a growing or declining population.

One big factor contributing to the tragic grizzly mortality in recent years in Yellowstone is the collapse of two major grizzly bear foods, Yellowstone cutthroat trout and whitebark pine. Researchers have found that whitebark pine seeds are especially critical to the health of the Yellowstone population. But fly over Yellowstone, or hike through its magnificent high country, and you will see vast swaths of orange-needled (dead) whitebark pine n testimony to the perfect storm now under way, caused by mountain pine beetle, a nonnative pathogen blister rust, and global warming, that together, are clobbering whitebark pine. Some experts predict that these forests, which have been shown year after year to determine whether grizzlies prosper or decline, will be functionally eliminated in the next five to eight years in the Yellowstone area.

Another factor contributing to excessive grizzly mortality is the removal of federal protections, which had for nearly 30 years reduced human-caused mortalities of grizzlies in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Today, without federal protections, the programs, resources and commitment are not in place to adequately address the two leading causes of grizzly bear death: habituation to garbage and other attractants, and conflicts with big game hunters. These conflicts can be expected to grow as grizzlies seek alternative foods to whitebark pine seeds during their fall feeding frenzy. Elk provide an obvious alternative choice for hungry bears, but one that invites problems with hunters.

The world for bears n and all of us n is changing with unimaginable, lightning speed as a result of climate change disruption. These radical changes were not predicted in documents underpinning the grizzly delisting decision, which were written before the current mountain pine beetle epidemic was in full swing.

It is time to stop clinging to an outdated understanding of bears and habitat dynamics in Yellowstone, and wishful thinking that "recovery" has been achieved. This year already 18 grizzlies have died; using the government's formula for estimating reported to unreported mortality, about 27 bears are dead. And big-game hunting season, when roughly half the grizzly deaths typically occur each year, has not yet started.

The government claims that more bears are dying because there are more bears. But this ignores the fact that mortality levels are unsustainable using the government's own standards. No one can deny that the population will go into a tailspin if current trends continue.

Things need to change if future generations are to enjoy the thrill of seeing a grizzly in and around our nation's first park. We need to act now to give bears more space to find alternative foods in suitable habitat, and redouble efforts to reduce human-caused mortality. Given the excessive death toll of grizzlies following delisting, combined with a lack of a meaningful management response so far, federal protections are needed to stop the hemorrhaging, and maintain grizzly bears in Yellowstone.

]]> Wolf-Watching in Yellowstone: Small World in a Big Park tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4113 2009-09-11T22:26:28Z 2009-09-21T19:20:00Z Louisa Willcox On Labor Day, my husband, Doug Honnold, and I drove through the northern part of Yellowstone Park on our way home from a hiking trip in the Beartooths.  The hillsides had turned tan, and some willows in the bottoms were tinged with yellow.  A few flowers hung on: white yarrow, purple aster, blue harebell.  We passed by a herd of over 100 buffalo, mostly moms and calves, sprawled out and eating leisurely in the afternoon sun, looking sleek, fat and — well, buff.

At Specimen Ridge, a gaggle of wildlife watchers stood by the roadside.  We slowed down.  There were our friends from Butte, Elizabeth and Bob Noble, adamant wolf/wildlife watchers and skilled photographers.  We saw a truck with B.C. plates — and recognized John and Mary Theberge.  John and Mary are two of Canada's most renowned wolf researchers, spending over 40 years in the Yukon, Labrador, British Columbia, and especially Algonquin Park, where they did some of the most extensive and creative research done on wolves anywhere. 

We pulled over, hugs all around.  And then Doug, the lead Earthjustice attorney representing 12 conservation groups, including NRDC, in the wolves lawsuit, was put on the spot to talk about the status of the wolf delisting case and last week's court hearing.  (Judge Molloy's wolf ruling came the very next day.)

Then it was John and Mary's turn to talk about their study of wolf howling and the differences they're finding between populations in Canada and the U.S.  After Yellowstone, they were headed next to the Southwest to research howling patterns in Mexican wolves.

John is a tall, grizzled figure with thoughtful eyes.  Mary is short and spirited, and she radiated joy at being in Yellowstone on a beautiful early fall day.  John spoke quietly, but authoritatively, expressing his dismay at the decision of Idaho and Montana to allow wolf-hunting right up to the borders of Yellowstone and Glacier Parks.  In Algonquin Park, the provincial government had drawn a "no hunt" buffer zone around the park in order to maintain the stability and integrity of the park packs.  Securing that protected buffer zone was no mean feat in a country where wolves are only protected in 2% of their range, and where protections are inadequate in parks that are too small.  This approach had proved effective in maintaining the Algonquin wolf population though, and would have been a smart thing to do here, he argued.  Why wasn't it done?  Good question — and there are a lot more questions, too, about the wisdom of hunting wolves prematurely in the Northern Rockies.

That night, I revisited John and Mary's book: Wolf Country: Eleven Years Tracking the Algonquin Wolves.  The packs had different names (Pretty Lake, Travers, Foys, Basin) but the stories were familiar.  There was as much controversy over the "big bad wolf" in Algonquin as in Yellowstone — incidents of poached wolves, overblown claims of deer losses, vitriolic meetings in small town churches, bureaucratic inaction in the face of compelling information about the needs for a different approach to the conservation of wolves.  Personal, vicious attacks on the Theberges.  John and Mary had reflected deeply on this situation and said in their book:

Just the thought of wolves works an evil alchemy in the minds of some people that penetrates deeply into the psyche, locks on to hidden fears and frustrations, and magnified emotion.  Maybe subliminally we remember when the competition was more equal, ancient struggles before humans took command.  Maybe because we do not condone overt racial discrimination, some people need something to master and condemn.

Perhaps it is simpler than that.  A hunter goes hunting for moose or deer and comes back empty-handed.  A farmer loses a sheep — or worries that his flock is in danger.  Parents raised on fairy tales and myths fear for the safety of their children.  All blame wolves.  Whatever the reason, the wolf-killing ban did not bring out the best in many people living in the Round Lake area.  If the wolf holds up a mirror, what is reflected was ugly.

John and Mary concluded their book with this:

Throughout our study, we have searched for a fundamental, ustainable relationship between humans, wolves, and things wild and free.  We have wondered, particularly, if science can identify such a relations and, through ecology, spin out guidelines.  If we can go to Mars and build all sorts of elaborate technological mousetraps, we should be able to manage nature in a sustainable way.

Reflecting on our years of study, we realize that we cannot.  The complexity of ecosystems places them beyond comprehension.  All the interactions between soils, maples, pines, hemlock, moose, deer, spruce budworm, winter tick, brainworm, snow, acorns, logging, hunting, snaring, coyote alleles, gene selection, cooperation, competition, co-evolution — and wolves... Nature's complexity can be, if we so choose, the fount of a deep respect.  Trying to understand at least some of the interrelated pieces brings immeasurable satisfaction.  It allows us to ask better questions and provides a platform for wonder.  Wonder breeds caring.  It is simple caring that leads to a cautious sustainable, harmonious relationship with wild things, caring even for the wolf-litmus of our environmental sincerity. 

Well said, John and Mary!  You who speak to wolves (and understand what they say back) can speak with similar eloquence to the rest of us.

As to the Theberges' generous offer to help in the Northern Rockies wolf battle — I plan to take them up on it.

]]> Wolf delisting court battle 2.0 tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/lwillcox//93.4030 2009-08-31T22:32:13Z 2009-09-10T18:34:05Z Louisa Willcox Right now, the NRDC Montana staff (Janet, Matt, and me) is driving back to Livingston from Missoula, after the federal court hearing on our wolf injunction wrapped up in front of Judge Molloy today. Matt's driving, so Janet is trying not to look out the window, even though it is a glorious late summer Montana day, a great day to be driving along the stunning Clarks Fork River.

The morning started early for Matt and Janet who left Bozeman at 5:30 am. (I had driven over the day before with the EarthJustice team).

We were greeted at the courthouse at 8 am by a small antiwolf rally with signs that read:

"nuke Canadian wolves"

"wolves are wildlife terrorists"

"the only way to manage wolves is to get rid of them."

 

A bunch were wearing blue t-shirts saying "save our elk." They were occupied with taking pictures of each other and hardly noticed when I took theirs.

The courthouse was packed seemingly beyond capacity, so people were allowed to sit in the lobby outside and watched the proceedings on screen.

Not surprisingly, Doug did not get much sleep last night, the weight of the wolves again on his shoulders. I think he was focused on the consequences of losing: hundreds of wolves being killed in a hunt that starts tomorrow in idaho. But he and the Earthjustice crew (Jenny Harbine, Tim Preso, and Sean Helle) were super-prepared, and outwardly calm. And, in the course of the morning, the Earthjustice team (represented by Doug who did the argument) demonstrated passion and conviction.

Jenny is 8 months pregnant too. Right before the hearing began, she left counsel table and leaned back toward Matt and me, saying "Matt, if something happens, would you be my designated driver?" This hearing and the high stakes it represents was just the kind of stress to induce labor.

The 3 hours went fast. One hour of argument by Doug, one hour by the federal government's attorney, and half an hour by each from the states of Montana and Idaho. Judge Molloy, an imposing figure with bushy eyebrows and a penetrating gaze, asked a lot of tough questions to all sides. About the merits of the case, what constitutes irreparable harm, and the rationale for the federal government flip flopping (again) in its decision to break up the population by delisting wolves in Montana and Idaho while maintaining wolves in Wyoming on the endangered species list.

Again, genetic connectivity between the three subpopulations in the northern Rockies was a central issue---an issue NRDC (and especially geneticist Sylvia Fallon) has long focused on. Doug read out loud an interesting concession that the hunt could adversely affect the prospects of wolves moving between subpopulations, by Montana wolf coordinator Carolyn Sime. In an email that was part of the administrative record, Carolyn said "if we were truly promoting (wolf dispersal), seasons would close by November, and they don't anywhere in the 3 states... And there are more things that we could have done to promote connectivity relative to public harvest and we did not. Lipstick on a pig -- well it is still a pig."

After all the effort and money we have put into the wolf recovery effort, we can and must do better than produce a pig of a delisting plan.

At the end of the 3 hours, Judge Molloy said he would rule soon. So we are keeping our fingers crossed.

(Earthjustice and "wolf loving" client groups including NRDC and Sierra Club)

Outside the courtroom, the crowd was buzzing. I heard one of the anti-wolf guys saying to a radio reporter on tape: "if the judge rules against the hunt, there will be a civil war."

This is why laws matter in the climate of thinly veiled violence that permeates the wolf debate.

Let us hope that the ruling is favorable and comes soon.

]]>