Support conservation measures to delist grizzlies

Reference is made to the opinion piece “Grizzly bear population is out of control,” by Dale Jorgenson, Daily Inter Lake, Jan. 18, 2024. Mr. Jorgenson makes some accurate observations — yet he attaches meanings to some of his facts that I suggest would benefit from additional information and discussion. Here’s my take:

While we surely have a substantial, viable population of grizzly bears, it is not, technically speaking, “out of control.” Grizzly bear populations, as with other large predators (lions, wolves) are biologically and ecologically self-limiting. But I will credit Mr. Jorgensen for meaning to say that in his opinion, we have more grizzly bears than we want or need; and I agree with him that it is up to us the citizenry, working through our government under current law, to determine and decide how to manage grizzly bears.

Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) grizzly bears in Northwest Montana (the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem) have been listed as “threatened” (as contrasted with “endangered”) since 1975. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has determined that grizzlies of the Northern Continental Divide have attained the legally established species recovery goals. Currently, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is reviewing a petition from the State of Montana to remove from listing and federal protections (“delist”) Montana grizzly bears in both the Northern Continental Divide and the Greater Yellowstone ecosystems — another very large area in which recovery goals have been met — and thereby turn back management to the state of Montana under an already prepared plan. The plan includes limited hunting. But even if U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service delists Montana grizzlies, the issue may remain unresolved if there are legal challenges. My guess is that, ultimately, it will be settled by Congress, through legislation to delist. Congress did exactly that, a few years ago, concerning wolves. Now we can hunt wolves under state regulations that provide very liberal opportunities and harvest quotas.

Mr. Jorgenson asserts that our local grizzlies do not fear us. I think he is right. Several incidental occurrences of grizzly bears even inside the city limits of Kalispell, Columbia Falls, and Whitefish have been reported and confirmed in recent years. Is this a change in their behavior? No, not in my opinion. We should consider that grizzly bears have never feared us and probably never will. They can and do go where they want, and this includes our rapidly expanding human-residential footprint. That is why they are often the object of aversive conditioning, removal and relocation, or euthanasia — and when necessary, even legally killed by ranchers whose livestock are under attack. Yet they remain more than happy to raid our fruit trees, chicken coops, storage sheds, campgrounds, cabins, and camper trailers — albeit normally under the cover of darkness or when we are not around—just as they did American Indian villages and hunter camps prior to settlement. They are very smart and bold animals, and we shouldn’t make “it” attractive to them, or easy. Maybe it is time we further standardize bear-resistant, bear-aversive, and bear-monitoring and control practices in urban and rural-residential settings. This might be done through local ordinances, incentives such as cost-sharing voluntary best practices, or whatever works. Let’s ask ourselves: To what extent have we deployed bear-proof trash containers, secure storage buildings and animal feeds, electric fencing, alarms, photo monitoring of bear-frequented travel routes, etc.? If we don’t change human activities that attract bears, it will be exceedingly difficult — maybe impossible — to affect bear activities and behaviors. I say this realizing that even these measures have their limits. Yet it is the least we should do. After all — the past, present, and likely future human migration into Northwest Montana makes the current bear-population growth pale by comparison; and, if left unmitigated, bear conflicts with humans that increase bear mortality could result in continuing or reinstated federal protections under the ESA. That is, no delisting, no state management.

Even legal hunting will not cause grizzly bears to develop fear of us. In fact, the sound of a gun or other loud noise will often have the effect of attracting them. They are smart; they learn and remember; and they want to check things out. Many elk hunters in Wyoming, Montana, and British Columbia have had their kill taken by a grizzly bear and, in some cases, been physically challenged or attacked while field dressing their elk or returning to retrieve it.

Mr. Jorgenson had a grizzly bear encounter but was not attacked. His neighbor-friend had an encounter but was not attacked. So too have many others had encounters and not been attacked. People who are attacked by a grizzly, almost without exception, have inadvertently surprised it at close range, challenged it, or attracted it. This is largely avoidable by knowing and using recommended practices and behaviors. Even in the absence of bear-avoidance and response practices — consider, for example, the hypothetical out-of-area recreational hiker in Glacier National Park who may have insufficient knowledge, experience, or protection and may not take warnings seriously — grizzlies that are not surprised, challenged, or attracted normally move away undetected. This is because they often detect us before we detect them, and we don’t even know they were there. Even some that are surprised move away. But of course, no one should ever count on that, especially in the case of a female with cubs. Be equipped and prepared, know what to do or not do, and act accordingly.

We must understand and accept that the entire western one-third to one-half of Montana is considered potentially occupied grizzly habitat. This means virtually anywhere and everywhere. Montana is wild — even in places that don’t look wild. Grizzlies are moving eastward well onto the high plains following stream courses flowing from the Rocky Mountain Front. And, according to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, they are moving south and west into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness that straddles the Montana-Idaho border—an ideal habitat from which they were essentially extirpated by the mid-20th century—and may, quite possibly, reestablish a viable population there even without direct management assistance. People living in Montana who have an unwarranted fear of bears or are unequipped to deal with one should, in my opinion, avoid the woods and other wildlands.

Can hunting control grizzly bear numbers at a targeted level, or limit their occurrence to mostly remote habitats? Yes, theoretically. But legal hunting will never be so liberal and successful as to make grizzlies rare in the settled valleys of Western Montana, let alone anyone’s favorite hunting ground within our vast federal, state, and industrial-private forests. Grizzly bears are here to stay, unless extirpated by illegal killing or avoidable human conflict. But even killing grizzlies in “self-defense,” which happens more often than it should (though we have a legal right to do it), will not have a measurable effect on the population or its geographic range.

Do large predators affect big game populations, their spatial occurrence and behaviors, and the difficulty of hunting them? Yes, they do. Yet elk are, in my opinion, more plentiful in Flathead and Lincoln counties than they were in the 1970s and 1980s. I suggest this is largely due to ongoing timber harvest, especially on private-industrial forest lands, that greatly increases palatable grasses in new openings and in regenerated young forest settings. Elk eat grass. But these days elk are often herded up — 20, 30, or even 50-100 all together—as opposed to the widely scattered small bands that were typical in the years before wolf recovery. So ... which is harder to hunt: a) large herds that move together and can appear absent from much of the landscape at a given point in time, or b) widely distributed small bands of 5-6 animals that the hunter must locate, usually in dense cover, and sneak close for a shot? The question is debatable, and, in my opinion, somewhat irrelevant. Both patterns currently exist. And elk hunting in Northwest Montana has never been easy, and never will be, no matter how many elk we have. Still, for those interested and able, hunting “hard” can ultimately prove very rewarding. I believe there are not a small number of mature, trophy bull elk in Northwest Montana that no one has ever seen. But those uninterested or unable to hunt “hard” should consider hunting elsewhere. That is, if they truly expect to get an elk. Whitetail bucks, too, seem harder to locate than in previous decades. Some are “hiding” on farms, ranches, or rural developments off limits to hunting, or even within our communities. But, for the most part, they are not hiding from grizzly bears. They are hiding from wolves, and if we are inclined to reduce the wolf population, any resident can legally purchase up to 10 wolf licenses @ $12 apiece. The wolf general hunting season spans six — yes, six — long months. Currently, four-plus months into the 2023-24 season, the wolf harvest in Region 1 stands at 88 as of January 29, compared to an allowable quota of 131. Point: Hunters should no longer be complaining about wolves. Rather, they should buy some tags and go get some pelts — if they can.

In summary, I recommend we all support grizzly bear delisting in Northwest Montana and the conservation measures necessary to get that result. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to make itself unnecessary. Species recovery leads to delisting — either by rulemaking or legislation — and there are many successful species recoveries, including that of our own grizzly bear population. Vote for people who will enact appropriate public policies, provide effective oversight of government agencies, and appoint or confirm judges that we believe will — to the extent it can be foreknown—focus exclusively on the text, context, and stated purpose of a given statute, as well as truly relevant case law, scientific facts, and expert testimony. In other words, no personal or political agendas should be brought to the job of judging.

Finally, I firmly believe Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks department, in collaboration with interested citizens and organizations, can and will manage a delisted grizzly bear population successfully. Successfully means incorporating appropriate measures for human safety, compensating legitimate depredation claims, penalizing lawbreakers, and integrating grizzly bear conservation and management with Montana’s social and economic fabric.

Paul E. Klug is a semi-retired forester with experience managing state, private, and federal forests in Montana and other western states. In 1998-99, working as a field-based biological science professional, he participated in a U.S. Department of Interior research project that surveyed grizzly bear population size and demographics in Glacier National Park. He resides in Kalispell.