Yellowstone grizzly delisting won't end debate

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

By Melanie Stein

Jackson Hole, Wyo--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced last week that Yellowstone grizzly bears would be removed from the protection of the Endangered Species Act or delisted. The move, however, is bound to stir up the decades-old controversy about grizzlies on public lands, rather than resolve it.

It is estimated that there are more than 500 Yellowstone grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, enough to sustain a viable population. But many conservation groups are nervous that not enough of the grizzlies’ range is protected, that a primary food source for grizzlies – white bark pine nuts – is under attack, and that funding for ongoing management and conservation is inadequate.

“We think it’s premature to delist,” said Franz Camenzind, executive director of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance. “The primary conservation areas we think should be larger than they are, and the kind of protection [grizzlies] have through the Forest Service doesn’t seem adequate.”

Given the possibility of oil and gas leasing on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Camenzind is concerned about habitat loss for grizzlies.

“Once bears are delisted,” he said, “a lot of these activities have a better chance of occurring. Even people who are advocating for delisting better step up and get involved in the Bridger-Teton forest management plan to help keep these lands from potential disturbing activities.”

Tim Preso, staff attorney at Earthjustice’s Bozeman office, agreed. “An issue is the extent they are providing protections outside the parks. They are relying on National Forest Service management plans, and the Bush administration has fundamentally altered the legal status of those forest plans to make them non-binding.

“Forest plans are no longer regulatory,” Preso continued, “but as the Forest Service puts it, aspirational. You or I wouldn’t sign a contract with only a hope that the other side would carry forward its duties.”

In addition to adequate habitat protections, Preso and Camenzind both worry about food availability.

“Bears here are quite unique in that they rely heavily on the seed cone production of the white bark pine tree to provide enough calories to fatten up for the winter hibernation period,” Preso explained. “Yellowstone grizzlies are quite dependent on white bark pine … With all the warmer winters we’ve been having, mountain pine beetles have moved into the zone. Previously, it was too cold for them, but they are just sweeping through the white bark pine and eating lots of trees.”

An exotic fungus called blister rust is also negatively affecting white bark pine.
Though grizzlies are generally considered opportunistic eaters that will eat seeds, roots, berries and living or dead animals, Preso isn’t entirely convinced.

“The government’s response is that ‘they’re opportunistic eaters and they’ll find something else to eat.’ They never told us what else they’ll eat. Why aren’t they moving to those alternate food sources when there is a white bark pine nut failure?” he asked.

In 1975, the grizzly bear was listed as a threatened species under the ESA as their population in the lower 48 states had dipped to extremely low levels. There are five distinct populations of grizzlies outside of Canada and Alaska concentrated in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming.

The Yellowstone grizzly, one distinct population segment that lives in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, is the only grizzly population that the USFWS has determined to be recovered and thus eligible to be removed from the list.

Once a species is removed from the ESA, responsibility for management, monitoring and conservation often falls in the hands of the state.

Given the region’s national parks and forest service lands, Yellowstone grizzly bear management will now lie with the three affected states – Idaho, Montana and Wyoming – and the National Park Service and National Forest Service.

“Each state’s management plan was approved by the USFWS before they decided to delist,” said Eric Keszler, public information officer for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

“After the bears come off the ESA, they are going to be managed cooperatively by three states and some federal partners. That group together is deciding what populations and mortality thresholds [must be maintained.]”

This group must ensure a population of 500 grizzlies and a mortality rate of no higher than 9 percent for females and 15 percent for males, Keszler said.
Game and Fish uses a variety of means to monitor bear populations, including radio collaring.

“It’s not just collared bears,” Keszler said. “We do aerial surveys. We’ve got a new project starting this summer where we’re setting up cameras. We’re pretty confident in the amount of bears that are out there. We all share our data and we share data with the other agencies.”

But adequate funding for post-delisting monitoring and management, estimated at more than $3 million, and genetic sustainability also are sticking points for conservation groups who are considering whether to file a suit to block delisting.

“We are examining the delisting document right now … to assess the extent to which the [USFWS] has dealt with the issues we raised in our comments and the concerns we had,” Preso said.

The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance is also weighing the decision whether to get involved in a legal challenge of delisting.

Jim Magagna, executive director of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, which has represented the cattle industry in Wyoming for 135 years, believes it’s high time Yellowstone grizzlies were delisted.
 
“We feel that the science and the original delisting goals that were established supported delisting quite a number of years ago,” he said.
 
“[Delisting] will provide additional flexibilities that our people need with livestock in grizzly bear areas,” Magagna continued. “In those areas where grizzlies are present and livestock are intensively grazed, we’ve seen quite a lot of conflicts.”

Magagna noted that grizzly-livestock conflicts have increased in the Upper Green River Valley and in the Cody-Meeteetse areas, though some conflicts have also been attributed to wolves.

“We’re pleased with the publishing of the delisting decision, and we wish now we could just go forward with good management for the bear and other uses. We anticipate there will likely be some litigation against it, but I don’t think the science supports that,” Magagna said.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, U.S, Sen. Mike Enzi and U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin have all expressed their support of grizzly delisting.

“[The] announcement represents a huge step forward in not only the management of grizzly bears, but also in the administration of the Endangered Species Act,” Freudenthal said. “I hope that the decision to return management responsibility for the bears back to the states is a harbinger of good things to come for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, wolves, bald eagles and sage grouse.”

The final rule will be published on Thursday in the Federal Register and official delisting will occur 30 days afterwards.

“A lot of the publicity on this has been ‘Oh, there’s lots of bears and we’re in great shape,’” Preso said. “But lots of bears is only part of the equation.

Certainly there are lots of bears now and that should be celebrated, but it’s only part of the picture. What’s going to happen to the bears after they are delisted and we pull away ESA protections?”
PERMALINK:
Yellowstone grizzly delisting won't end debate | Planet JH News Article: General Environment

Leave a Comment