Grizzly delisting remains contentious issue

By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer

Grizzly bears are doing well in and near Yellowstone National Park. About 600 of the majestic bruins wander the forests and meadows, following their noses and their appetites, delighting millions of tourists and looming large in the collective American imagination.

It has taken an incredible amount of work to build the grizzly population to this level, about triple what it was in 1975 when the great bear was first listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Concerns for the bears' well-being have changed how people live, work and recreate all across the stunning landscape known as Greater Yellowstone.

Hikers and campers routinely tie their food high above the ground. Before the U.S. Forest Service can sell timber or build roads, it must analyze any potential impacts on the bear. Rural residents are more careful of their garbage. Isolated towns have closed landfills at considerable expense. Many hunters carry bear spray alongside gun and knife. Cattle and sheep have been removed from hundreds of thousands of acres of public land.

It adds up. The bears are doing well.

Last week, the government formally announced that its time to delist the Yellowstone population of grizzlies, to turn their management over to the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

Regional and national environmental groups all sing the praises of the bear's recovery. But few of them are ready to support delisting.

"National parks may become bare of bears for future generations," trumpeted the headline on a press release from the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that has said it likely will try to halt delisting in court.

"Federal protection is the only reason these bears exist in Yellowstone today," said NRDC's Louisa Wilcox. "And they aren't yet ready to survive without it."

The federal government disagrees.

"Our grandchildren's grandchildren will see grizzly bears roaming Yellowstone," Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton said earlier this week.

In July, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a delisting proposal was imminent, most green groups were undecided about what to do.

Now, most of them are making up their minds and opposition to delisting is beginning to coalesce, and that could be important in the likely court fight.

"It appears to be growing," Sterling Miller said of opposition to delisting. A former bear biologist in Alaska, Miller now works for the National Wildlife Federation, the only national environmental group to publicly support delisting at this time.

The disagreement in the green community, he said "is over what's adequate" in terms of protecting the bear after delisting.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has written a conservation strategy that calls for even more intense monitoring of the bear population after delisting.

It calls for keeping a minimum population of 400 bears, but says the population likely will keep growing in some areas. It also calls for limiting human-caused mortality to an average of 4 percent a year. Since the 1990s, the bear population has been growing by 4 percent to 7 percent a year.

Approximately 6 million acres, including Yellowstone's 2.2 million acres, would be preserved as high priority bear habitat. That land would be called the Primary Conservation Area or PCA.

Outside the PCA, bears would be allowed to live where there is "suitable habitat" and "social acceptance," terms that aren't precisely defined.

Most of the PCA is national park or wilderness and already has a full component of bears.

David Gaillard, of the Predator Conservation Alliance, said his main concern is that there are no assurances the Forest Service will continue to protect grizzly habitat without the goad the ESA provides.

His sentiments were echoed by the Sierra Club, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife and others.

GYC's Dick Dolan also said he worries that Wyoming and Idaho governments will be intolerant of bears moving to new territory.

Outside the PCA, states will gain much more leeway in deciding how to handle bears. The states also would be allowed to set up hunting seasons for grizzlies, although they would be strongly limited.

And then there's the matter of money. To assure that the bear population remains healthy, the conservation strategy calls for lots of radio tracking of bears, plus monitoring of food sources for the foreseeable future. That's expensive work and funding isn't guaranteed.

"We have to be diligent if we want bears, and part of being diligent means money," Dolan said.

He maintains the plan doesn't allow enough room for mistakes.

"If everything happens the right way and nothing goes wrong, we might be OK," he said.

But things could go wrong. Critical food supplies like whitebark pine cones could take serious hits from insects or disease. And if the bear population takes a dive, it takes a long time to rebuild it.

Miller, on the other hand, argues that people should recognize and embrace success.

The bears are numerous and widespread, appearing in places where they hadn't been seen for decades.

The ESA should be seen as an emergency room treatment, not long-term care, Miller said.

"The ESA is not meant to be a permanent management strategy," he said.

Delisting will take months, if not years. The final decision is likely to be made by a judge.

On the Web:

Natural Resources Defense Council - www.nrdc.org

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - http:''mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/2yellowstone.htm

Greater Yellowstone Coalition - www.gyc.org

Predator Conservation Alliance - www. predatorconservation.org

National Wildlife Federation - www.nwf.org

Reader Comments