Science supports keeping grizzlies endangered species protections
Some arguments for the removal of Endangered Species Act protections for Yellowstone’s grizzly bears have little to do with science and instead rely on innuendo and unsubstantiated assertion.
This is the kind of claim Hoover Institution fellow Terry Anderson recently made in The Hill.
{mosads}Anderson is not an expert on wildlife ecology, but rather has built a career promoting free-market capitalism. By contrast, I’ve spent the last near 40 years studying large carnivores in the western U.S., including 15 years following grizzlies in the Yellowstone ecosystem. I’ve also spent my share of time as a teacher in classrooms at Yale and MIT unpacking the complexities of relations between science and endangered species protections.
To support grizzly bear delisting, Anderson extensively references Lewis and Clark — but then misrepresents not only the ecological context of their observations, but also their journal contents.
His characterization of the area around the three forks of the Missouri as with “plenty of humans with guns, no doubt shooting at grizzlies,” contradicts the fact that Lewis and Clark met no one within days of this juncture and that guns were scarce in the area at that time. Moreover, Lewis and Clark were traveling along the Missouri River at a time that probably contained the highest densities of grizzlies on the Great Plains — along a riverine corridor ripe with carrion of buffalo that died during winter, from calving, and from attempting to cross the raging river.
Contrary to Anderson’s assertions, observations of grizzly bears along the Missouri River and its tributaries over 110 years ago offer little basis for inferences about the fearfulness or abundance of grizzlies west-wide at that time — certainly not in Yellowstone now.
Nor is there any scientific support for the idea that hunting a solitary carnivore such as the grizzly bear instills fear, other than perhaps in the moment between being shot and dying. Nor is there any scientific support for the notion that management of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act has been detrimental or that state wildlife managers will do a better job of conserving this iconic species.
Yes, numerous environmental groups are challenging removal of these protections in court, as are many western Tribes such as the Shoshone-Bannock, Crow and Northern Cheyenne, who have ancient spiritual connections with grizzlies and the places they live.
They do this for good reason.
Grizzlies still total no more than 3 percent of their former numbers in the contiguous United States. And contrary to Anderson’s argument, density of bears is no surrogate for recovery. If it were, we could place a few grizzlies in a zoo and assert that, since bear density in that zoo is equal to “historic” densities, we had achieved recovery.
Yellowstone’s grizzly bears remain isolated and consequently acutely vulnerable to deleterious environmental changes. They’ve lost all or most of two of the five foods that once sustained them (whitebark pine seeds and cutthroat trout). A third, elk, have precipitously declined in number during the last 10-15 years. As grizzly bears search far and wide for food, they are more likely to cross paths with humans.
Without the ESA’s protections, these encounters will likely result in escalating bear deaths that threaten this majestic species at a time when climate warming portends more potentially catastrophic environmental changes.
As Anderson rightly suggests, political motivations are rife. There is little else to explain why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to meaningfully address any of the many threats facing Yellowstone’s grizzly bears, which is the focus of complaints currently in front of Judge Dana L. Christensen in Montana Federal District Court.
To secure the future of Yellowstone’s grizzlies, we need contiguous populations of thousands — not mere hundreds — of bears. And we can have many more grizzlies than we do now. There is no shortage of bear food in the wider world, only human tolerance and generosity.
Collaborative efforts between government and private citizens such as the Blackfoot Challenge and High Divide in southwestern Montana are showing how humans and grizzlies can coexist in the very places critical to linking Yellowstone to grizzly bear populations farther north — linkages that are essential for maintaining genetic diversity and fostering true grizzly bear recovery. But continued endangered species protections will be essential to fostering these opportunities and addressing mounting threats.
David Mattson is a researcher and teacher recently retired from the U.S. Geological Survey and an 11-year appointment as Lecturer and Visiting Senior Scientist at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.