Experts studying path toward delisting grizzly

MANY GLACIER — Top grizzly bear experts from Montana, U.S. and Canadian governments descended on Many Glacier Hotel last week to discuss the future of grizzly bear populations throughout the Northwest, including in and around Glacier National Park.

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, created in 1983 to oversee recovery of grizzly bears in the lower 48 states, is considering removing the protected status under the Endangered Species Act of two bear populations: those in the Northern Continental Divide and Yellowstone ecosystems.

Grizzlies were one of the first high-profile listings under the 1973 law, listed as a “threatened” species in 1975 after being extirpated from the vast majority of their historical range.

“The animals are leading the way — they’re recovering themselves, along with a lot of our help,” said Richard Hannan, deputy regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “If it’s recovered, we should proceed with a potential delisting. … right now we’re evaluating the ability to develop a proposal.”

Delisting individual populations doesn’t sit well with everyone, and at least one environmental organization said it will challenge the proposal in court if the conversation doesn’t substantially change. Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director with the Denver-based WildEarth Guardians, spoke out during the public comment period at the end of Tuesday’s meeting.

“I’m very concerned about some of the fundamental understandings of how the Endangered Species Act works that were expressed during the meeting today,” Cotton said. “You can’t take distinct population segments and delist them one at a time. We share the goal of recovering the species, but we also want to see the integrity of the law upheld.”

Asked about that issue after the meeting, Hannan disagreed.

“We think there’s enough flexibility [in the law] that you can look at delisting them individually,” he said.

He pointed to the Yellowstone population as an example.

That population was delisted in 2007 but put back on the federally threatened list after conservation organizations challenged the decision in court. While Hannan admitted there were problems with the original delisting, the court never said the decision to delist a specific population was improper.

“The court only has to find that they screwed up one thing to reverse a decision on that,” Cotton countered. “The Service would need to go back and relist the species in a way that they can go back and say that these areas have recovered.”

Bonnie Rice, a Sierra Club representative, also was at the Many Glacier meeting and expressed concerns afterward about a piecemeal delisting process. She worried that such an approach could compromise the genetic diversity of grizzlies throughout the region, and undermine “linkages” or corridors between distinct populations that allow grizzlies to migrate between ecosystems.

For example, while the two populations being discussed have made robust recoveries, the far-smaller population of bears in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem is still struggling. Given the right conditions, increasing population density in the healthier ecosystems could push more bears to those struggling populations. Linkages also allow animals to migrate in response to changes in habitat, land ownership and seasonal range.

Gregg Losinski, the committee spokesman, said that issue was being overstated.

“The whole concept of ‘linkage’ is part of that newer science,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that’s important over the long run, but when it comes to recovery and initial management, the bears are genetically OK. … If it gets to that point where it looks like some genetic diversity is needed, you can bring in animals and introduce those genes.”

Should the committee decide to pursue a delisting recommendation, it will be up to the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop the proposal, which will include management and monitoring requirements.

A 60-day public comment period would follow, after which point the federal agency will respond to those comments and may revise or amend its original proposal to incorporate those concerns.

All told, Hannan said the process would likely take a good 18 months.

“If we’re going to do it, we need to make these decisions relatively soon,” he told the committee.

The proposal’s management component will be heavily influenced by a comprehensive study that Rick Mace, a veteran grizzly expert with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, plans to release later this month.

During the meeting he provided a snapshot of this findings, which will include the results of 40 years of grizzly research and a discussion of management scenarios for the bear populations if they are delisted. He showed the group a matrix of numbers  showing possible mortality rates and how they would impact the Northern Continental Divide population, which is estimated at about 980.

One of those scenarios would be to hold the population stable at or near current levels. At most, mortalities would be limited to 17 bears per year in that instance, he said, including nonhunting deaths.

“If you had a quota system, and you’re trying to stabilize the population, these are the kind of numbers you’re looking at,” Mace said, adding that his report won’t contain recommendations but is simply a compilation presenting different options to managers.

Responding to a committee member who felt uneasy picking a number from the list, Mace said that was the job of wildlife managers and the public — to decide whether the goal is to stabilize, reduce or increase the population.

“None of this works if you don’t have a goal,” he said.

“That’s where the people and the politicians come in,” Losinski added after the meeting. “The agencies are the scientists, and the enforcement people. They collect the data, and all the agencies, through their various processes, can make recommendations, but ultimately it’s the politicians and the people that make that decision.”

The committee set its next meeting for Dec. 8-9 in Missoula, with the exact site yet to be determined.

Reporter Samuel Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.