14 May 2009: Opinion

Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bears
Face Threats on Two Fronts

The magnificent creature at the heart of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem now confronts two grave perils: the loss of its key food source because of rising temperatures, and increased killing by humans. A renowned grizzly expert argues that it’s time to once again protect Yellowstone’s grizzlies under the Endangered Species Act.

by doug peacock

The Yellowstone grizzly bear population is again in serious trouble. During 2008, the bears suffered a double disaster: Grizzlies died in record numbers, and global warming dealt what could be a death blow to the bear’s most important food source.

Some 54 grizzly bears — including 37 shot by humans — were known to have died in 2008, the highest mortality ever recorded; this number probably exceeds the extensive killings of 40 years ago when Yellowstone National Park closed down its garbage dumps and bears wandered into towns and campgrounds. The Yellowstone grizzly population sharply declined in the early 1970s and, consequently, the bear was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975.

Related to the high mortality of 2008 was the massive die off of whitebark pine trees, whose nuts are the bear’s principal fall food. Mountain pine beetles killed the trees; the warm winters of the past decade allowed the insects to move up the mountains into the higher whitebark pine forests.

How could this record mortality have happened? In April of 2007, the Department of Interior’s U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed Endangered Species Act protection for the Yellowstone grizzly bear. The agency’s decision to delist suggested that all was well with the great bear.

In 2008, hunters and other humans shot bears in record numbers. People

Wikimedia

The quality of habitat for the grizzly is eroding because of warming temperatures.

killed grizzlies because they could — sadly, a not uncommon human attitude in the American West — and since Yellowstone’s grizzlies had been removed from the protection of the ESA listing, there were virtually no penalties for shooting them. Bear management had been turned over to fish and game agencies of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana who tend to accept any hunter explanation of self-defense in grizzly country. In short, the grizzlies were easy to kill because their lives were made less valuable by delisting.

“Known” mortality is, as a rule of thumb, generally about half of actual grizzly bears dead. A hundred dead bears per year, no matter if the total number in the ecosystem is 200 or 600, means the population is crashing downhill. This is especially true for the grizzly, one of the world’s slowest-reproducing mammals.

The reason the pine nuts are not available to grizzly bears is because the whitebark trees in the Yellowstone region have succumbed to global warming. Global warming was glossed over by Fish and Wildlife when they delisted the Yellowstone grizzly. But this, too, is not rocket science. Last fall behind my Montana house on the northern flank of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, far up the mountain, the forest turned red. So did the tops of all the other mountain ranges in and around nearby Yellowstone park.

You could see it from the highways. The region’s whitebark pine trees surrendered to an invasive pine beetle on a scale of death none of us thought we’d ever see. And it happened so fast — not in decades but just a few years — that it took both concerned citizens and scientists by complete surprise.

The reason the trees died is because the winters warmed up during the last seven years and the mountain pine beetle, already active in the lower lodgepole pine forest, moved up a life zone into the whitebark and killed the trees. Nature controls the beetle by freezing the larva — cold temperatures of minus 30-35 degrees Fahrenheit for about five days in winter, depending on the thickness of the tree bark. It is well documented that good whitebark cone crops decrease grizzly mortality and increase the number of bear cubs per litter.

But whitebark pine in the Yellowstone park area is nearly gone: No amount of science or management will bring the trees back in our lifetime. With whitebark pine nuts eliminated from grizzly bear diets — and this seems to be the case — grizzlies in this island ecosystem will be severely stressed. The bears could be on their way out.

What does U. S. Fish and Wildlife, which is the lead agency for the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, have to say about the dead grizzlies and dying pine trees? On April 15, 2009, these agencies gathered in Bozeman, Mont. to discuss Yellowstone grizzly mortality. They call the alarming number of dead bears in Yellowstone a “spike,” which they would reduce by recommending better hunter education, use of bear spray as a deterrent, and opening a limited grizzly bear hunt in the three adjacent states. The committee coordinator Chris Servheen admitted that the 2008 mortality was the highest that had been seen, but pointed out that today’s grizzly population is larger than that of the early 1970s.

Mortality spikes are often tied to low whitebark pine cone production and the consensus was that human-caused bear mortality will drop when the number of cones per tree bounces back. Yet when pressed (by one of the handful of non-agency people, including myself, at the meeting) about the possible role of global warming on whitebark pine, team leader Chuck Schwartz reluctantly admitted the low production of pine nuts could be the beginning of a trend.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter how many cones grow on the surviving trees when 80 percent of the whitebark forest is already dead. No one brought

The agencies seem to believe it is the inalienable right of hunters to kill grizzlies whenever they feel the need or desire to.

this up. Nor was there the whisper of a suggestion that the removal of ESA protection for the Yellowstone grizzly had anything to do with the record number of bears shot. Nobody thought of asking the public, especially elk hunters, to take responsibility for causing these encounters with grizzlies or to give up anything in terms of hunting hours or access to reduce grizzly mortality (in my opinion, getting too close to a grizzly and precipitating a charge is always the fault of the human).

The agencies seem to believe it is the inalienable right of hunters to kill grizzlies whenever they feel the need or desire to. The possibility of returning the Yellowstone grizzly to the ESA protections is unthinkable to this group.

The Department of Interior’s principal public agency responsible for protecting Yellowstone’s grizzlies is currently incapable of doing so. The Interagency Team/Committee has become an insular institution deaf to public opinion; it has pandered to state game departments who speciously argue that “socially acceptable” local views should replace the best available science to determine where grizzlies may live.

With the quality of grizzly habitat eroding due to global warming, the bears will require more public land to roam. The most important single move government could make is to relist the bear immediately, and once more afford the Yellowstone grizzly protection under the ESA. Relisting alone will reduce the record human-caused mortality; the government’s proposals will not.

Yellowstone’s grizzly bears are in trouble — people are killing them off in record numbers and global warming is burning up the food they need to survive. The Secretary of the Interior needs to instruct the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw its rule delisting the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.

Whether the present Interagency Team or Committee is up to this task is another question — they fought for delisting in the face of undeniable threats to the bear’s future as a species. Fresh, outside leadership is urgently needed.

POSTED ON 14 May 2009 IN Forests North America

Print Email Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Mixx Facebook

COMMENTS

Hear, hear Doug! As a Livingston Enterprise reporter last year I reported multiple bear encounter stories, with these bad results for the grizzlies. It's hard to believe but the rugged rancher/hunter types who people Montana are afraid of bears, wolves, and generally anything that doesn't resemble a cow, including bison. It seems antithetical to the persona, but exterminating keystone predators is part of the western heritage. This must be halted from Washington by relisting the bear under the rubric of global warming. Of course the polar bear has failed on grounds of habitat so it doesn't bode well of Yellowstone's grizzlies. We can make it happen.

Here's to that and another lunch with Doug Peacock to discuss the matter further.

Posted by Mark A. York on 23 May 2009

This a welcome contrast to Rick Bass' puff piece (other side of page) on his own private wilderness bill. It's really a mandated-logging bill that threatens the continued existence of the most endangered grizzly population in the country. Peacock advocates for grizzlies unequivocally. Bass sweeps Yaak grizzlies under the bus for his utopian social engineering project. A follow-up article on grizzlies and grizzly habitat trends with both authors' thoughts might be enlightening.

Posted by steve kelly on 24 Aug 2009

POST A COMMENT

Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Doug Peacock is an American naturalist and outdoorsman and author of Grizzly Years: In Search of the American Wilderness, a memoir of his experiences observing grizzly bears. His other books include Walking It Off: A Veteran’s Chronicle of War And Wilderness and The Essential Grizzly: The Mingled Fates of Men and Bears, co-authored by his wife, Andrea Peacock.

Print

Email

Tweet This

Digg

Del.icio.us

Reddit

Mixx

Facebook

Stumble Upon

Why Africa’s National Parks
Are Failing to Save Wildlife
The traditional parks model of closing off areas and keeping people out simply may not work in Africa, where human demands on the land are great. Instead, what’s needed is an approach that finds ways to enable people and animals to co-exist.
READ MORE

In Japan’s Managed Landscape,
a Struggle to Save the Bears
Although it is a heavily urbanized nation, fully two-thirds of Japan remains woodlands. Yet many of the forests are timber plantations inhospitable to wildlife, especially black bears, which are struggling to survive in one of the most densely populated countries on Earth.
READ MORE

The Growing Specter of
Africa Without Wildlife
Recent studies show that wildlife in some African nations is declining even in national parks, as poaching increases and human settlements hem in habitat. With the continent expected to add more than a billion people by 2050, do these trends portend an Africa devoid of wild animals?
READ MORE

Finding Common Ground on
Protecting Montana Wilderness
In the Yaak Valley of Montana, environmentalists have been talking to loggers, snowmobilers and other longtime opponents of wilderness protection about the future of public lands. Their accord is part of a cooperative effort that could lead to the first wilderness-area designation in the state in a quarter century.
READ MORE

A Total Ban on Whaling?
New Studies May Hold the Key
As the International Whaling Commission debates whether to ban all whaling or to expand the limited hunts now underway, recent research has convinced some scientists that the world’s largest mammal should never be hunted again.
READ MORE

Why Africa’s National Parks
Are Failing to Save Wildlife
by fred pearce
The traditional parks model of closing off areas and keeping people out simply may not work in Africa, where human demands on the land are great. Instead, what’s needed is an approach that finds ways to enable people and animals to co-exist.
READ MORE

How High Will Seas Rise?
Get Ready for Seven Feet
by rob young and orrin pilkey
As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they should assume that the world’s oceans will rise by at least two meters — roughly seven feet — this century. But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice sheets melt.
READ MORE

Looking for a Silver Lining
in the Post-Summit Landscape
by fred pearce
Much was left undone in Copenhagen, and the many loopholes in the climate accord could lead to rising emissions. But the conference averted disaster by keeping the UN climate negotiations alive, and some expressed hope that the growth of renewable energy technology may ultimately save the day.
READ MORE

Copenhagen: Things Fall Apart
and an Uncertain Future Looms
by bill mckibben
The Copenhagen summit turned out to be little more than a charade, as the major nations refused to make firm commitments or even engage in an honest discussion of the consequences of failing to act.
READ MORE

The Dangerous Allure of
Global Warming Technofixes
by dianne dumanoski
As the world weighs how to deal with warming, the idea of human manipulation of climate systems is gaining attention. Yet beyond the environmental and technical questions looms a more practical issue: How could governments really commit to supervising geoengineering schemes for centuries?
READ MORE

Bringing Hope to Copenhagen
With a Novel Investment Idea
by orville schell
Governments from the developed world will never come up with enough money to help poorer nations adapt to global warming and implement renewable energy technologies. The solution may lie in using a modest allocation of government funds to spur private sector investment in green energy projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
READ MORE

Copenhagen: The Gap Between
Climate Rhetoric and Reality
by bill mckibben
As the UN conference enters its second and decisive week, the calls for strong global action to deal with climate change do not appear to be penetrating inside Copenhagen’s Bella Center.
READ MORE

Climategate: Anatomy of
A Public Relations Disaster
by fred pearce
The way that climate scientists have handled the fallout from the leaking of hacked e-mails is a case study in how not to respond to a crisis. But it also points to the need for climate researchers to operate with greater transparency and to provide more open access to data.
READ MORE

As the World Waits on the U.S.,
a Sense of Déjà Vu in Denmark?
by bill mckibben
Twelve years ago in Kyoto, the world was poised to act on a climate treaty but looked for a clear signal from the United States. Now, with the Copenhagen talks set to begin, the outcome once again hinges on what the U.S. is prepared to do.
READ MORE

As Copenhagen Talks Near,
What Are Prospects for Success?
For months, hopes that a climate treaty would be signed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference have been raised, then dashed, then raised again. Now, with prospects waning that a binding accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be reached this year, ten environmental leaders and climate experts outline for Yale Environment 360 what they believe can still be accomplished at Copenhagen.
READ MORE