Grizzly debate heats up


By CHRIS MERRILL
Star-Tribune environment reporter
Saturday, December 6, 2008

LANDER -- Reports of a huge statistical spike in the number of grizzly bear deaths in this region have alarmed some wildlife advocates.

At the same time, officials with an interagency study group believe the overall population estimates for grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem are probably conservative -- possibly ultra-conservative.

But at least one environmental organization believes this year's overall population estimates are misleading. A representative for that group said she wouldn't be surprised if the grizzly population actually declines in the coming years.

A bear biologist with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, who is a member of the interagency study group, said grizzlies are doing just fine. He expects their population will continue to grow despite this year's die-off.

The current official estimate for the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone region is 596 animals, up from 571 in 2007. Despite 49 confirmed and 80 probable deaths this year, the population has still grown by about 4 percent, officials said.

Chuck Schwartz, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader in Bozeman, Mont., told The Associated Press if the current trend continues, the population will double in 20 years.

Not everyone is convinced.

Louisa Willcox is a senior wildlife advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC is one of the conservation groups currently challenging the Bush administration's decision to remove grizzlies from the endangered species list.

Willcox said this year's overall population estimate is deceptive, because it doesn't take into account the high numbers of fall mortalities.

"It's misleading because the population estimate is based on a calculation of females with cubs, and it's centered on the bears' active season, i.e. summer," Willcox said. "Whereas the mortality that occurred this year happened at the end of the year, so the population estimate doesn't reflect these deaths."

You have to go back to 1972 to get a "pileup" of dead bears similar to this, she said, adding: "The scale of mortalities that happened this year is off the chart and it is unsustainable."

Willcox concedes one year does not make a trend, but she anticipates it could be the start of one, as more whitebark pine trees die off from beetle attacks and fungal blister rust.

Grizzlies in this region rely heavily on whitebark pine cones for a consistent source of high-calorie food, and this year's crop was by all accounts bad.

"Whitebark pine is really the driver of mortality," she said. "I think this year is in some ways a harbinger of what's to come with whitebark pine."

Dave Moody, trophy game coordinator for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, agrees that this year's poor pine cone crop was probably a driving force behind many bear deaths. But he disagrees it's a harbinger of a coming population decline.

It's more likely part of a natural cycle, Moody said.

The big bear picture

It's necessary to look at this year's death figures through a long-term lens if you want an accurate picture of their implications, Moody said this week.

In his Lander office, several grizzly bear skulls sat on the bookshelf, there was a plaque commending all those involved in the recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly population and a large map showing the grizzly's core conservation area.

In 1975, there were only about 150 grizzlies left in the entire Yellowstone ecosystem, Moody said. That year marked the bottom of a long decline in population numbers that started when whites began settling the West in the late 19th century.

Today, there are about 600 grizzlies in the same region, and their range is expanding -- mostly into Wyoming, he said.

"I know at least one environmental group is really trying to highlight this is a horrible year in terms of mortality," Moody said. "While numbers are up, and they are way up, it has to be put in perspective of what the entire population is doing. The current trend data is still positive."

The reason the grizzly population is doing fine, he said, is because it is not hitting its "mortality thresholds" most years, and in those years there are increases in their numbers. On average, the population has been growing 4 to 7 percent annually, so even with the occasional spike in deaths such as biologists saw this year, the general trend is still upward.

"A bad year tends to happen every six to eight years," Moody said. Still, the bear population has been growing steadily since the 1980s, he said.

Willcox argues that there hasn't been a "pileup" of bear deaths this harmful since 1972, following the closure of the Yellowstone dumps, and just before the animals were listed as an endangered species.

Bearish counts?

According to Moody and the interagency grizzly bear study group, the grizzly population is doing very well, and the actual number of bears in the Greater Yellowstone area might be higher than they've been estimating.

"Several of us felt that the existing rule set was ultra-conservative, and we thought it would be a good idea to look at it," Moody said, "So we did, and at least the initial feedback we're getting is that it is conservative."

The study team consists of one representative from all of the federal and state agencies involved in grizzly bear management, including Moody.

"We're in a process now where we've got a funding package put together to take this to a group of statisticians to see if they can modify the existing rule set to make it more accurate," he said.

He doesn't think the changes are going to "drastically" increase the population estimates, but Moody does predict the estimated total will go up.

Currently, population estimates are based on a combination of ground observations and flights over 40 "observation units" twice a year. A complicated math formula and rule set takes great pains to avoid counting a single bear twice, Moody said, and the current rules are so conservative they almost certainly underestimate the real number of bears.

Additionally, the grizzlies' range has expanded in the past decade, primarily south and east into Wyoming, including into the Meeteetse country, the Owl Creek Mountains, and into the northern end of the Wind River Mountains, he said.

"Ten years ago, for example, we didn't feel that we had lots of bears south of, say, the Dubois-to-Moran highway. Now we do," Moody said. "We've got bears that have pretty much filled up all the available niches and suitable habitats around the Cody area."

Whitebark and hunters

This year there was a big spike in grizzlies killed both legally and illegally by hunters in Wyoming -- probably about 15 total -- in large part because the whitebark pine cone crop was bad.

Grizzly bears, by nature, like to live far away from the presence of humans.

Nowadays, because humans have taken over much of the low country with development and roads, the bears generally stay high in the mountains. At higher elevations in the Northern Rockies one of the best and most nutritious food sources for grizzlies is whitebark pine seeds.

But in years when the pine cone crop is down, more grizzlies tend to descend to the lower elevations in search of food. Their hyperphagic phase -- the time of year when they are eating like mad, trying to put on as much weight as possible prior to hibernation -- also happens to coincide with hunting season here, Moody said.

"We had a lot bears shot by hunters," he said. "We had two cubs that were just maliciously shot. We had several bears that were taken because, again, food was probably in short supply and they had to come down, and they got in trouble in developed areas."

Scientists don't know yet all of the causes behind this year's decline in whitebark pine cones, but most point to increased beetle infestation in the trees along with the spread of fungal blister rust as at least partially responsible.

Bears have learned to look for gut piles and carrion from hunter-killed animals as an alternative source of food, Moody said, and hunters in the region leave several thousand metric tons of this food source in the Greater Yellowstone area every year.

"The downside is it brings them into close proximity to humans that are hunting," he said. "We documented that bears actually pull out of the park, the refuge area, during the gun seasons in Montana and Wyoming to take advantage of those carcasses."

Hunters tend to hunt the same drainages year after year, Moody said, and the bears have keyed into that.

Willcox argues that there is no indication the beetle and blister rust epidemics are going to abate anytime soon, and as the whitebark pine cone crops continue to decline, even more bears will be coming down to areas where humans live and hunt, which could lead to even higher death rates for grizzlies.

Contact environment reporter Chris Merrill at (307) 267-6722 or chris.merrilltrib.com



By the Numbers

Grizzly bear deaths in 2008

Wyoming, outside the national parks:

24 -- Deaths outside national parks in Wyoming that were investigated by the Game and Fish Department.

9 -- Grizzlies shot by hunters in self defense (seven confirmed, plus two probable).

6 -- Grizzlies killed illegally in Wyoming.

6 -- Killed by wildlife managers because of conflicts with people.

2 -- Grizzlies that died of unknown causes.

1 - Died of natural causes.

10-15 - The normal range of grizzly bear deaths in Wyoming in recent years.

Source: Dave Moody, trophy game coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

In the entire Yellowstone ecosystem:

49 -- Known and investigated grizzly bear deaths in the entire Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, which includes parts of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

80 -- Total number of grizzlies that probably died this year, based on statistical models.

5 -- Number of Grizzlies that died in Yellowstone National Park this year (all of natural causes).

0 -- Number that died in Grand Teton National Park.

596 -- Total number of grizzly bears currently living in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, according to the interagency management team's official estimate.

571 -- Official estimate for the same grizzly bear population last year.

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council

Unfortunately the libs and enviro freaks will most likely win the debate even though they are dead wrong (and always have been). People in New York, D.C., and San Fran run the griz issues. Heaven forbid they talk to people who live among the griz (other than when we serve them during their vacations in Montana).

Anyone who believes the population estimates by these folks needs to have their head examined. The researcher's funding depends on low estimates and fear mongering. The lower the estimate, the more money to go study baby grizzly turds.

This year a hunting area near Lincoln Montana was shut down temporarily due to an over abundance of griz and their boldness following hunters around.

On one elk hunt this year, right outside of Big Sky, I saw more griz tracks (fresh snow) than I thought possible in a small area.

I love the fact that there are griz in the hills and don't wish to over hunt them, but they NEED to be hunted again, just like the wolves.