Yellowstone Grizzly Plan Bears Watching
10/02/01

The draft criteria for recovery of the grizzly in and around Yellowstone is available and is open to public comment. It is of interest to all hunters and recreationalists. There is a progression that’s of concern. The Fund for Animals filed the litigation that originally stopped the hunting of grizzly bear and effectively all game species listed as “threatened” within the continental U.S.A. Now, bear-human conflict and resultant mortality arising from general hunter presence and access to the recovery area and the number of hunters in the U.S. Forest areas surrounding the park are all becoming an issue because of the Fund. Will they stop other hunting as well? The draft plan definitely calls for the monitoring and ultimately the control of access roads, hunter numbers, all recreationalists and livestock in the surrounding national forest and wilderness areas. In 1993, the recovery plan was first issued by the USF&WS, but it has been in litigation since then. In 1994 the Fund for Animals and 22 other organizations and individuals filed suit attacking it. Then the National Audubon Society and 19 other organizations and individuals filed suit. The new draft plan addresses the issues raised in those suits that the USF&WS had to supply to the Court in May, 1999. The draft generally provides an example of the limits as well as the complexity of modern wildlife science. It analyzes everything from the choice foods of grizzly to methods of estimating populations. “The available habitat for bears is largely determined by human activities.” “There is no known way to calculate the number of grizzly bears that can live in an area in relation to ongoing changes in habitat values nor to fully understand the social system of the grizzly and how it is influenced by changes in bear density (number of bears in a fixed area) and related social interactions (between the bears) at various densities.” “As food availability fluctuates, there are corresponding changes in bear density . . . and changes in social tolerance within the bear population.” “Additional numbers of bears . . . result in increasing human/bear conflicts and resulting erosion of public support for bears and expansion of bear range.” All these bear-bear and human-bear relationships are complex and act in relation to densities of bears, densities of humans, and availability of foods.” The criteria states that “there is no quantitative way to precisely estimate the number of animals required for a viable population of any species.” It estimates that the grizzly population in the Yellowstone area is growing at the rate of 3 to 4 percent or more per year. The “probability of persistence for the Yellowstone population is greater than 95 percent even out to a 500-year time period.” “Its probability of extinction is 0.0004 (4/10,000) – a very low probability.” “Human activities are the main factors that influence grizzly bear survival.” The draft lists activities that cause conflicts between humans and bears which result in increased bear mortality. They include roads, trails, numbers of hunters and numbers of livestock allotments. There are significant hunting areas in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming involved. In fact, most of the recovery area is hunting area, and hunting is perceived as a conflict-causing use that is increasing. The number of hunters is increasing, and the number of mortalities caused by hunters is increasing. The Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone is 9,209 square miles. The park is only approximately 40 percent of the Recovery Zone. Surrounding U.S. Forest Service land is 59 percent, and two percent is private land. “Hunters are one of the primary conflicts with grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem,” according to the draft recovery criteria. “A significant number of bear mortality have been due to bear-hunter encounters.” The draft provides that if the increases in bear mortality can be related to increases in hunter numbers “then management agencies will act to minimize such conflicts... initially by outreach/education efforts, and if these fail by limiting hunter numbers to those levels where grizzly mortality (accumulated from all sources) is within the limits in the Recovery Plan.” “While the number of hunters using the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in Wyoming has slightly increased, the number of self defense shootings of grizzly bears by hunters and/or licensed outfitters and guides has increased in the last 10 years. There is disagreement as to why this is occurring. Theories range from too many hunters in occupied grizzly habitat, bears learning to seek food at the sound of gunshots, to more bears increasing the odds of bear-hunter encounters. The reasons for the increase in bear mortality are not that clear-cut, however. The most consistent theme is that most of the bear losses could have been avoided if people had acted according to recommended safety standards.” “The number of elk hunters in Wyoming in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone... were estimated and compared to grizzly bear mortalities, both verified and probable from 1988 to 1997 to determine if bear mortality is correlated to hunter numbers. The data show there is little relationship between hunter numbers and human-caused grizzly mortality.” (Emphasis added). Apparently the greater number of hunters has not been causing the escalating bear mortalities, and the mortalities are within sustainable limits. This is particularly important because up to 41,269 hunters per season hunt elk not counting other species in or within 10 miles of the Recovery Zone. (Up to 17,842 in Wyoming, 20,645 in Montana and 2,782 in Idaho. Most of the recovery zone is outside of the park. The four principle food items of the Yellowstone grizzly have an interesting connexity to human-bear conflicts. They are the seeds of Whitebark pine, army cutworm moths, large ungulates (mostly calf elk or winter mortalities) and spawning cutthroat trout. There are significantly more bear mortalities from human/bear conflicts when there is a shortage of one or more of those natural foods. To the contrary, “[d]uring years when these food sources are abundant there are very few human/bear conflicts in the Yellowstone ecosystem . . .” The ecosystem is unique in that “ungulates are a major food source, as indicated by bear scats, feed site analysis and bear hair isotope analysis in the Yellowstone ecosystem. On average, approximately 79 percent of the diet of adult males and 45 percent of the diet of adult females... is meat.” “Ungulates rank as the second highest source of net digestible energy available to grizzly bears” in the area. “Ungulates are also important to bears because they provide a high quality food source during early spring before most vegetal foods become available.” “Grizzly bears feed on ungulates primarily as winter-kill carrion from March through May.” “Grizzly bears also obtain ungulate meat through predation on elk calves.” Winter kills are monitored under the plan on more than 41 spring ungulate carcass survey routes. The army cutworm moth is also a hot food item. As many as 51 different grizzly bears have been observed feeding at moth sites on a single morning. The moths “have the highest calorie content per gram of any bear food and are available during the late summer–early fall periods when bears are consuming large quantities of foods in order to acquire sufficient fat levels for winter.” A grizzly’s annual energy budget is reported to be 960,000 calories, and in 30 days feeding extensively on moths a grizzly can consume half of that. The bears also work the streams hard for spawning cutthroat trout because the “trout are one of the highest sources of digestible energy available to bears.” In Yellowstone Park one year 44 different bears were making use of the streams around Yellowstone Lake alone. Whitebark pine cones are also an important food. When cone production is low, the bear “seek alternate foods at lower elevations in association with human activities, and the number of nuisance bear management actions and human - caused grizzly bear mortalities both increase during fall. During years when whitebark pine cones are abundant, there are generally very few grizzly human/bear conflicts during the fall season. Whitebark pine are threatened by infections of white pine blister rust which is being monitored. Other areas are being affected as well as hunting. “Existing sheep allotments will be phased out as the opportunity arises” according to the draft. Ironically, snow machine use is not yet thought to be a problem because of the season in which it occurs. There are formulas or models to evaluate the effect of everything including motorized access, e.g. IGBC Motorized Access Management process, etc. “Motorized access is one of the most influential factors affecting grizzly bear use of habitats.” “[I]n addition to open road density, restricted roads and motorized trails are important.” The development of sites on public lands is also to be frozen at its 1998 level because it allows “a stable to increasing grizzly population.” The deadline for public comments is September 15, 1999 to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, USF&WS, University Hall, Rm. 309, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. Call if you want a copy of the draft criteria from Conservation Force.