Border Bears Workshop and IGBC Meeting

National Wildlife Federation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

The Wildlife Society

NW Section of the Wildlife Society

Montana Department Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

British Columbia Habitat Conservation Trust Fund

International Association of Bear Research and Management

There are eight bear species totaling about 900,000 bears world wide. The black bear population in North America is larger by far than all other bear populations combined, at about 600,000 bears. Brown (i.e. grizzly) bears are the most widespread of all bear species. In many areas of their range brown bear populations have been reduced in numbers and distribution, and highly fragmented. Some of these small isolated populations occur in Norway, Sweden, Turkey,

Croatia, Austria, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Japan, France, Spain, Italy, and Greece.

The grizzly bears in the North Cascades and Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak recovery areas are among those small fragmented populations of bears. The grizzly bear was federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a “threatened” species in the U.S. in 1975. Generally, wildlife and fish populations are managed by individual states. However, when a population becomes endangered and is listed under the ESA, management control shifts to the federal government. The control does not shift back to the states until recovery plan goals habe been achieved and the states have management plans in place. There are five recovery areas in the U.S. for grizzly bear; the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), Bitteroot, Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak (SCY), and the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE). The Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak and the North Cascade recovery areas both extend into Canada.

The IGBC is made up of representatives from all the agencies affected by the recovery areas including; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land management (BLM), individual State Wildlife agencies, representatives from Canada, and others as appropriate. Each recovery area has its own IGB Subcommittee, made up of similar representatives including in some instances a county commissioner. The IGBC website is “www.fs.fed.us/rl/wildlife.igbc/ ”. The following report is given by recovery area. Where the term “bear” is used it generally means “grizzly bear.”

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. GYE grizzlies were listed as “threatened” in 1975. Since then the recovery plan has made excellent progress. The bears have more than met the goals for de-listing, so much so that the de-listing process has started. There are 531 bears in the GYE population including 52 females with 102 cubs-of-the-year. They have expanded outside of the original recovery area and it is expected that several will move into Utah within the next few years, if not there now. Once delisted, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) no longer applies to the bear in the GYE recovery area. As a requirement to complete delisting, in addition to meeting recovery plans, it is necessary that a written “Conservation Strategy” be completed along with a plan from each state Department of Wildlife as to how the bears will be managed in their respective states after delisting. This of course requires a number of reviews and sign-offs by the responsible agencies. The draft conservation strategy was approved in principle at the IGBC meeting. The final should be released in spring 2003. In any event, the GYE population of grizzlies are recovered and near delisting.

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Glacier National Park within the NCDE has conducted a rigorous population sampling using hair snares. The snares were set on a detailed grid basis covering most of the Park. From the hair samples, DNA information is being taken which will indicate whether the same bear was previously sampled. Although not yet complete, this DNA process will provide an accurate population projection. Current population estimates are 200 bears in and around Glacier National Park, which is about one-third of the NCDE. National Forests within the NCDE plan to conduct a similar hair sample and count. The plan to do that is complete and funding is expected from Congress in 2003. When funding is received, there will be an accurate count of bears for the entire NCDE within 2 to 3-years. That information will be very helpful in planning for and monitoring recovery. Bears in the NCDE north of the border are not listed as threatened because the population there is at a satisfactory level. The recovery rate within the NCDE is not known.

Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak. There is a small but slightly increasing population of bears in the SCY recovery area. Estimates range from 75 to 95 total bears, with the Cabinet-Yaak having about 35 bears and the Selkirks about 50 bears. Numbers in the Selkirks are increasing at a rate of 4.5% and in the Cabinet-Yaak at 1.2%. In addition to radio collaring, DNA sampling is also planned to better estimate the population and understand rates of increase (or decrease). Progress is being made in regard to sanitation issues (bear resistant garbage collection) in areas within the recovery area as well as adjacent areas. As always funding is a limiting factor. Human caused mortality is considered a significant problem in all recovery areas and especially within smaller populations. Within this area 81% of all mortalities are human caused. Statistics show that recovery will only allow one bear lost annually due to human cause within this area and still meet recovery goals. Over the past few years that goal was being met, however, in 2002 there were at least 8 human caused mortalities. In one instance, 4-miles north of the border in Canada, a female with 3-cubs was shot, apparently intentional. In another instance, in 2001, two 3-year old males were captured and radio collared. When turned loose, the first bear went north into B.C. where in 2002 it got in trouble and was eventually shot. The second bear turned south and ended up in my neighborhood, roaming a large area from Pack River on the east, to Chewelah on the west. He denned last winter along the Washington-Idaho border about six-miles northwest of our place. This fall, after having spent part of the summer around the “49 Degree North” ski area, he was shot near Priest Lake for unknown reasons. It could have been mistaken identity for a black bear. It appears most of the eight mortalities were bordering, but outside of the recovery area. Within the SCY recovery area the short term problem to recovery is human caused mortality, and the long term problem is limited spring range.

Bitteroot. The Bitteroot recovery area is along the southern Montana-Idaho border. There are no documented grizzly bears within this recovery area at this time. The recovery area would support 320 bears. Reintroduction would cost $400,000 for the first five years. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for bear recovery and a Record of Decision (ROD) issued. Idaho passed legislation prohibiting importation of any grizzlies to this area. A settlement between the State and Federal officials resulted in the ROD being rescinded even though 97% of the 26,000 public comments received on the EIS favored reintroduction. The USFWS still has plans for recovery but they are held up due to higher priorities elsewhere. One of the biologists made the comment, “administrations come and administrations go, but the habitat goes on forever!"

North Cascades Ecosystem. The NCE recovery area is in both the U.S. and Canada, with over two-thirds of the area in Washington and less than one-third in British Columbia. Although the grizzly bear was listed as a “threatened” species in the U.S. in 1975 the original recovery plan did not identify the NCE as a recovery area because of a lack of information available regarding the status of grizzly bears and their habitat in the region. Instead the NCE was identified as an evaluation area and in 1986 a study was initiated to gather information on: the grizzly population; important habitat; and human influences on bear habitat. This investigation, completed in 1991, provided evidence that a small number of grizzly bears resided in the U.S. portion of the NCE, and that sufficient habitat was available for the recovery of a viable population. As a result of these findings the NCE was designated a recovery area, and a plan was developed. That process was completed in 1997.

The total population in the NCE is estimated to be less than 50 bears. The Canada estimate for their side of the NCE is 17 bears including 5 to 6 reproducing females. Populations of less than 50 individuals are generally in a decline and are of particular concern when isolated, which is likely the situation in the NCE.

A 1996 public attitude survey indicated general support for recovery. 64% of the respondents in the eastern portion of the NCE and 74% on the west side supported or strongly supported grizzly bear recovery. Additional data suggests that people support augmentation of resident bears with bears from outside the NCE!

Several initiatives are in place within the recovery area including improved sanitation in and around the NCE. Along with the usual bear resistant dumpsters, the plan included a loan program within the NCE to make wildlife resistant panniers and backpack canisters available to the public and outfitter/guides. On the U.S side funding again seems to be the most limiting factor for recovery. A side note is that Washington passed legislation that does not allow importation of grizzly bears into Washington state.

On the Canadian side (British Columbia), their recovery plan is complete, with a goal of removing the grizzly from threatened listing by the year 2050, with a population of 150 bears in the NCE. The plan includes a current augmentation goal of 5-bears per year for 5-years. The transplanted bears would be sub-adult females relocated along the border. The plan is presently being reviewed by a blue ribbon committee. The B.C. Ministers instructions for this review is that the plan will include augmentation! It is expected that the review will be complete this spring and that augmentation will begin in 2003.

North Cascades Grizzly Bear Outreach Project (GBOP). A presentation was made by this group outlining their project which is “promoting an accurate understanding of grizzly bears and their recovery in the North Cascades Ecosystem through community education and involvement.” Basically an education project. This $40,000 project is being promoted, as near as I can tell, by a small group of people. Their funding came from five agencies and two non-governmental organizations (NGO’s). The funding contributors are as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $10,000, USDA Forest Service $5000, National Park Service $1000, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $2000, Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee $0, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance $10,000, Defender of Wildlife $5000. Their goal is to reduce opposition to recovery and augmentation of the grizzly bear in the North Cascades. They have produced 50,000 brochures, and staff is available to provide presentations to most any group that is interested. The brochure can be viewed on their website www.bearinfo.org. In 2002 they targeted the eastern side of the NCE and in 2003 will target the west side of the NCE. A contact for the GBOP is Chris Morgan 360-758-4193.

Panel Discussion. On Tuesday evening a facilitated panel discussion was held with invited community representatives. I was one of those invited. The exercise was set up where we rotated through 4-tables with a different bear recovery topic presented at each table. We then regrouped at the first table and summarized our discussions. At the end, one member of each group made a presentation to the whole group. The format of this type of exercise (and the workshop in general) is not such that a person has opportunity to oppose bear recovery or augmentation. Topics were generally set up with the theme “how would you make this work?” and that sets the tone of the outcome. Several county commissioners were on the panel and they expressed great concern that recovery may injure the economics of local communities. I expressed concern as to how recovery would affect trails and possible trail closures, and the concern outfitters have regarding a higher cost of doing business. All concerns provided by each member of the panel were recorded. A summary of the exercise was presented to the IGBC the next day.

Agency Presentations. Most agencies reported that improved sanitation in all aspects of garbage handling is gradually taking place and is a good improvement because it helps in regards to black bears as well. These improvements are taking place in all forests and at a slower pace in counties. As a side note, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has developed a notebook containing information on bear resistant dumpsters, what works, what doesn’t, etc. Education on living with bears (and all sorts of wild critters) is gradually taking place in schools, with hunters, campers, and others who use our forests.

Several presenters covered work which is being done in regard to mapping connectivity zones. These are possible connections between recovery areas and would allow bear populations to gradually expand from one recovery area to another. With these areas identified, it will be possible to manage or restrict physical changes within them to preserve the connectivity in the future.

Studies have shown that although grizzly bears travel about in a fairly large home range, they seldom travel or move any significant distance. The home range of offspring usually overlaps the home range of the parent. For this reason they seldom move from their home range to other suitable habitat. The exception is when the population increases enough, they gradually expand into other suitable range.

One area of human caused mortality is road-kill on highways and railroads. Mitigation will be constructing strategically located, over or under-pass crossings along highways. I was curious why bears would be on railroad tracks, and the reason is that lots of grain and corn gets spilled along the tracks during shipment. The bears follow the tracks cleaning up the grain or corn. This appears to be more of a problem in Canada than the U.S. because of the location railroads near recovery areas.

On Monday evening a very good presentation was made by a gentleman with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. It was titled “Living with Giants: Bears and People of Kodiak Island, Alaska.”

Most of the bear biologists were impressive, but perhaps the most notable person in attendance at the workshop was Daryl Kirby, the Mayor of Bonners Ferry. He seemed to understand living at ground zero for endangered species, how recovery affects his community, the science and biological data driving endangered species recovery, and, he was able to articulate the situation in a very impressive manner.

What to do? Here is my take from the week. It appears to me that recovery will most likely occur, although it will be a struggle in the North Cascades. The agencies and their biologists appear to have the support of the general public, they have recovery plans in place, and it is just a matter of time. Political support, funding, and human caused mortality are the greatest road blocks. Keep in mind that the ESA was passed by Congress and is the law of the land. Washington and Idaho have legislation which prohibits importation of bears. The chance of your organization influencing bear recovery one way or the other is slim, in my opinion. Political attention that reduces funding would most likely slow down or prolong recovery efforts. It’s probable that bears planted in Canada will eventually move into the U.S. Your opportunity to influence what happens in Canada is also slim.

Given the situation, you may wish to take a another look at current membership views on your position, considering the general public support for bear recovery. I suspect the issue is somewhat polarized within the membership. Does “not opposed to recovery” mean you are in favor of recovery or just neutral? Find out what your members concerns really are. Is it access restrictions, personal safety, cost, etc? Both WOGA and Back Country Horsemen should articulate their positions on these issues and how they affect you.

One could see recovery as a freight train moving along. You could look the other way and be left behind, not influencing the outcome. Or, get on board or at least get educated and enter discussions with the agencies involved, with specifics on how it affects your activities. In other words work towards a win-win situation where your needs are included in the recovery process. The longer recovery takes, the longer the uncertainty and restrictions will be in place!

Consider that it may not be all bad. There are outfitters and back country horsemen living, working, and recreating in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming that have been around the bears for years. Both are still there, learn from them! For WOGA, could you imagine advertising pack trips in “grizzly bear country?” Those words certainly might add some spice to the vision of a wilderness experience! For Back Country Horsemen, your desire to experience the wild west and imagine how it was during the days of discovery could be fulfilled!

I recommend everyone become educated, learn about the grizzly bear, learn how outfitters and backcountry horsemen in the NCDE and GYE live with the bears now, and how they work with the agencies. You might: invite someone from those areas to come talk at your conventions; send one of your members to “living with bears” training as presented by the USFS at Ninemile Ranger Station; better yet, use your members who have already attended LNT training to provide in-house training; or invite a GBOP representative to provide a presentation at your 2003 convention.

A lot of information was provided so I’d encourage you to check with local agency biologists if you have questions. You may contact me at jimmurphy@priestriver.com.