Grizzly bear recovery in Idaho

Authors(s): J. G. MacCracken, D. Goble and J. O'Laughin

Publication:

Publisher:

Publication Date: 0000-00-00

Type: Report / Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group ; no. 12

Location: Moscow Idaho

Abstract: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Grizzly bear recovery in the lower 48 states is guided by a controversial plan developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that was revised in 1993. Four of the six grizzly bear recovery areas identified in the plan are at least partially in Idaho. Scientists, resource users, and citizen conservationists are arguing among themselves and with others about the merits of this plan. Controversies about grizzly bear recovery illustrate several shortcomings with implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Some people question the need for listing and recovering distinct population segments of grizzlies, others question whether established measures of population status are adequate to either establish or assess recovery goals, and others question land-use changes enacted by federal agencies responsible for grizzly bear populations and their habitat. To relieve these and other problems, some people are calling for changes in the ESA itself. Such proposals cover a wide range of options and are not reviewed here except in reference to grizzly bears. As perhaps the ultimate challenge of the willingness of humans to make room for other species, as well as a powerful symbol of wilderness for some, grizzly bears epitomize many public land and resource management challenges. As with many debates about the ESA, the issues have less to do with saving individual species or ecosystems than with the relationship of humans to their environment. Grizzly bears do not sustain humans, but grizzly habitat does, and that habitat is biologically richer when occupied by grizzlies. As more and more people inhabit areas in grizzly country, the issues become more difficult. The presence of grizzly bears complicates resource management on federal lands, but it does not mean cessation of all land-use activities. There is evidence that grizzly bears and humans can co-exist to some degree, at least in the short term in some areas. How many bears are enough? No one seems to agree on an answer. What are the alternative approaches for recovering grizzly bears? The current recovery plan calls for continuing efforts to recover grizzly bears in six different areas. Two populations of grizzly bears are very close to meeting their recovery goals and could be proposed for delisting in a few years, while others will continue to be managed following the stipulations in the revised recovery plan. Some populations are not improving, and could either be written off as unrecoverable or have recovery efforts continue into the indefinite future. All grizzly bear populations could be delisted, which could be touted as a great success story for the ESA. None of these actions require modifying the ESA, a law that gives the USFWS broad latitude and flexibility to allow what agency biologists feel is the appropriate set of actions. The revised recovery plan is controversial among those with different scientific as well as resource management perspectives. Some feel the plan is overly restrictive, others feel it is not restrictive enough. Some feel it is trying to do too much in too many areas, others feel it is not doing enough and should have higher population goals and include larger areas. Perhaps these arguments mean the plan is fairly balanced, and therefore the appropriate course of action to pursue under the current laws of the land. Or perhaps the debate means that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find the balance between economic development and species conservation that is the overall goal of the ESA. As the political scientist James Tobin (1990) said in his analysis of the ESA, "The protection of biological diversity raises fascinating economic, social, political, and institutional issues that will not soon fade." As long as society continues to ask federal biologists to make the decisions, we can expect conservative recovery plans that promote the continued existence of species in as many areas as biologists think are necessary and feasible. OVERVIEW The purpose of this report is to provide information on the reasons for listing grizzly bear populations that occur in Idaho, the goals for delisting, the management and recovery programs designed to reach those goals, the unique interagency bureaucracy associated with these efforts, and the impacts of grizzly bear management and recovery programs on the use of natural resources by humans. We also discuss current controversies and issues that will effect grizzly recovery, attempt to define problems and barriers to recovery in various contexts, and identify some recovery alternatives. This information should be useful to policy makers, agency administrators, managers and researchers, and various interest groups as well as the general public. The hoped-for result is better-informed decisions about grizzly bear recovery in Idaho. Readers will notice that grizzly bear recovery involves many technical issues as well as special language used by biologists and legal experts. Most of these technical or unfamiliar terms are defined in the Glossary contained in this report and readers are encouraged to consult the Glossary when an unfamiliar term is encountered. The symbol ? means section (?? means sections) and is used to refer to portions of the Endangered Species Act, or ESA. The ESA assigns government agencies the responsibility to identify and protect plants and animals that are near extinction. In 1975, six isolated populations of grizzly bears in the conterminous United States (the lower 48) were officially listed as threatened under the ESA. Listing under the ESA not only entitles these species to special protection, but also requires federal agencies to make efforts to recover them to the point where they can be taken off the list of protected species. As the lead agency, the USFWS is required to develop a recovery plan detailing those efforts. This report analyzes planned recovery efforts in Idaho. Grizzly persistence is primarily a function of large land areas where there is little human occupancy and use. In 1975, and currently, the Cabinet/Yaak, Selkirk Mountains, and Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystems had confirmed populations of grizzlies. Portions of these three ecosystems occur in Idaho. In addition, the Selway-Bitterroot area, most of which is in Idaho, and the North Cascades of Washington were suspected to contain grizzly bears and have habitat characteristics making them suitable as recovery areas. A sixth area, the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, has grizzlies and is in Montana. Four Grizzly Bear Ecosystems (Cabinet/Yaak, Selkirk, North Cascades, and Northern Continental Divide) extend into Canada. The degree to which Canadian and United States bears interact is either unknown or inadequately documented. Grizzly bears have been protected in Idaho since 1947 and are on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's list of threatened and endangered species. Idahoans have decades of experience with grizzly bears and have been actively managing their habitat for more than a decade. Following listing in 1975, the USFWS developed a grizzly bear recovery plan and approved it in 1982. At that time little information on grizzlies was available for the Selkirk Mountains, Selway-Bitterroot, or North Cascades Ecosystems. The goal of the 1982 plan for these three areas was to gather information on their suitability as recovery areas and on the status of those grizzly populations. The first revision of the grizzly bear recovery plan was finalized and approved in September 1993. However, it did not contain chapters on the Bitterroot or North Cascades Ecosystems, which were to be added to the plan later. The Bitterroot Chapter was finalized in July 1994 and has been approved as part of the revised plan. Grizzly bear management and recovery plans did not become major public policy issues in Idaho until 1991, when the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee decided to pursue grizzly recovery in the Selway-Bitterroot area, which had been officially designated the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. The debate became more heated in 1992 when the draft revision of the grizzly bear recovery plan was released, followed a year later by the draft chapter for the Bitterroot Ecosystem that has since been revised and approved, and awaits implementation. In addition to the recovery plan actions, some environmental groups have called for even more comprehensive measures to protect grizzlies and their habitat. A number of lawsuits, many of them still pending, may change grizzly habitat management on federal lands by making road density standards more stringent. Some suits may also redefine the purpose of the recovery plan. The USFWS states that the recovery plan is advisory in nature and that actual recovery actions will be taken by other federal agencies, specifically the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service in consultation with the USFWS. Thus, the recovery plan does not set specific standards and guidelines, allocate resources, or initiate actions, and is not subject to environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Some environmental groups and scientists criticize the plan because it does not contain habitat protection and road density standards, which presumably would change the advisory role of the recovery plan and redefine the relationship of the plan to NEPA. Resource user groups?timber, livestock, and recreation?and environmental groups are concerned about the recovery plan, especially the proposal to reintroduce grizzlies to the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Concerns have been expressed about additional access restrictions, delays in timber sales, and potential livestock depredations as well as new and more restrictive regulations, standards, and guidelines. Others believe that even more stringent restrictions than those in the plan are needed to insure grizzly recovery. Human encounters with grizzlies possibly resulting in injuries are also feared. Claims of impending economic disaster from overly restrictive policies are made by some groups and countered by others, leading to confusion and the proliferation of misinformation. As a result of the many concerns and conflicting points of view, the Idaho Legislature created a Grizzly Bear Management Oversight Committee in early 1993 to provide information to Idahoans and increase the involvement of the state in recovery plans and future management programs. In mid-1993 the Advisory Committee of the Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group suggested an analysis of grizzly bear recovery plans and management programs specific to Idaho. This report is the result. The Advisory Committee of the Policy Analysis Group suggested six focus questions to guide the analysis. These questions, with short answers, appear in the next section of this Overview. Expanded replies are provided in Chapter 1. Chapters 2 to 6 provide the information base supporting the replies to the focus questions, and contain details on other issues as well. Several alternatives for grizzly bear recovery under the ESA are presented and reviewed in Chapter 7. We do not recommend any particular alternative. Preference for one alternative or another is a function of individual beliefs about different scientific theories, moral questions about the relationship of humans and other species, and political questions reflecting different positions on the relative importance of the social and economic impacts of managing and recovering imperiled species.

Keywords: Grizzly bear, Idaho, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, IGBC, livestock, Mammal, population, management , population, mortality, animal, mammal, habitat, suburban area, human activity, bear, Ursidae, Ursus arctos horribilis