County commissioners, conservationists oppose grizzly bear relocation

by Michael Howell

Both the Ravalli County Board of Commissioners (BCC) and some conservationists have made public statements recently opposing any plans to actively reintroduce an experimental Grizzly Bear population into the Bitterroot Ecosystem. The statements were made in response to a request for public comments from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as the agency is currently in the process of producing a court ordered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning Grizzly Bear recovery in the area.

The Grizzly Bear restoration EIS in the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), currently under consideration, will analyze alternatives for restoration by examining potential effects on the human environment, addressing management approaches for bear-human conflicts, assessing considerations for grizzly bear connectivity between recovery zones, and incorporating other relevant information regarding impacts. As part of this process, the agency has identified several actions to consider, including a no-action alternative. Other alternatives that may be considered include implementing the existing nonessential experimental population regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), removing the regulations from the CFR with or without additional management to aid natural recolonization, or designating a new experimental population for the zone under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

“Ravalli County is deeply concerned with many management actions, ramifications and constraints imposed with grizzly bear restoration and their detrimental influence on maintaining forest health, treating wildfire conditions, improving habitat, livestock depredation or other conflicts, limiting recreational access and diminishing recreational opportunities,” wrote the commissioners, adding that “reintroduction versus natural recovery may cause rural communities to suffer disproportionate negative impacts and economic hardship from incursions by grizzly bears into human occupied areas, harming residents who are dependent on personal food production, livestock operations and other rural daily living activities.”

The commissioners claim that negative adverse impacts from grizzly bear reintroduction include: public health and safety from grizzly bear attacks, loss of access and opportunities on public lands, hunting and trapping restrictions due to grizzly bear occupied areas and many other activities. They note that “forced, man-made reintroduction by moving bears increases probabilities of negative interactions as they adapt to unfamiliar territory and will seek the easiest fast-food sources that will endanger humans and bears.” 

They ask, “Does the USFWS assume liability if a human death or injury is caused by a grizzly bear that was translocated to the BE?” 

“Today with recovery and the abundance of bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) reintroduction is unjustifiable for restoring a population to the BE as bears are dispersing from these areas on their own,” wrote the commissioners. “Grizzly bears are already naturally migrating on their own into the BE and vicinity from the profusion of bears in NCDE and the GYE. Natural recolonization versus reintroduction would likely reduce harmful impacts due to conflict prone grizzly bears as humans and bears naturally acclimate.” They also state that reintroduction would likely cause animosity toward grizzly bears “like what happened with the grey wolf reintroduction.” 

“Ravalli County strongly opposes reintroduction of grizzly bears into the BE and urges the Service to maintain the status quo of a no-action alternative,” they conclude.

Meanwhile, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks is advocating for grizzlies in ecosystems around Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks to be removed from the Endangered Species List. In their comments on the Bitterroot restoration, the department made it clear the state believes federal officials should prioritize delisting those grizzlies before turning attention to the Bitterroot.

According to Wildlife Consultant Mike Bader and Geospatial Analyst and Wildlife Biologist Paul Sieracki, co-authors of a recent study entitled “Natural Grizzly Bear Repopulation in the Greater Bitterroot Ecosystem,” delisting the grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide and Greater Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly populations would be a big mistake. They note in their study what the county commissioners also recognized, that it is precisely the growth of these populations that is enabling the natural reintroduction of grizzlies into the BE.  

“Delisting of NCDE and GYE grizzly bears would sound the death knell for natural grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem and connectivity between the NCDE and GYE populations. Consider that plans for both ecosystems allow for the populations to each be reduced by several hundred grizzly bears. That means bears on the periphery that are the source of dispersing migrants would be shot, trapped and euthanized at high levels. The spigot would be closed and grizzly bears would be penned within isolated recovery areas that are too small to support viable populations,” states the report.

Their report explains and shows on maps how and where female grizzly bears may expand from the NCDE and occupy the BE, and how much time that might take measured in years. 

“The initial phase of BE reoccupation is already under way,” states the report, and that the prospects of repopulation through unassisted movements is quite high. “The question is, will the core contiguous population area expand into the BE first? It is on the edge of it now. Or will dispersers mate and start pockets of demographic activity ahead of the main core in areas like the Ninemile Demographic Connectivity Area and the Sapphire Mountains? It can be said that both are essentially the same thing and are occurring within many areas adjacent to the Bitterroot Ecosystem.”

While the proximity of the core area facilitates this migration, in the case of human-assisted mechanical translocations they are far too close to overcome the return instinct which is very powerful in grizzly bears. The NCDE is a source population for natural emigrations to the BE because the bears work it out on their own without unnatural interventions that require capturing, drugging and transporting bears long distances, which increases the risk of accidental mortality, it states in the report.

“Natural immigration is a viable strategy which must be considered and fully analyzed in the upcoming EIS,” the report states. “We believe that the law and the science direct that the Bitterroot Ecosystem grizzly bear recovery strategy be based on natural immigration facilitated by protected habitat connectivity areas and with the full protection of the Endangered Species Act.”

The study does not endorse the no-action alternative, however; instead it recommends several actions to encourage and support the natural migration, such as constructing several highway and rail line passage structures across the I-90 and US 93 transportation corridors; extending the Ninemile Demographic Connectivity Area to include the Petty Creek, Northern Bitterroot and Cherry Peak areas and connect the DCA to the Bitterroot and Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems and expanding the Bitterroot Recovery Area itself; reducing the road densities within and adjacent to connectivity routes; conducting hair trap DNA studies throughout the BE to monitor and evaluate the population status; monitoring during breeding seasons since the presence of males during this period could be an indicator of female presence; and expanding food and attractant storage regulations including garbage.