More misleading statements about grizzly bears by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Louisa Wilcox, NRDCThe October 2nd article in the Missoulian also contained another misleading statement by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Dr. Chris Servheen about public support for bear recovery.
Dr. Servheen said: "If we are blocked by the legal system, if conservation is not achievable, support for grizzly bear conservation will drop off." The fact is that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)'s grizzly management efforts have been blocked by the legal system many times over the last several decades, when the agency could not justify its decisions using the best available science, and when its actions violated the Endangered Species Act—and public support has not dropped off.
That is because the public expects FWS to follow the law and use the best available science to recover endangered species. There have been at least 10 successful cases brought by conservationists against the federal government over the past 25 years – cases that improved conditions on the ground for the bear -- and public support for the grizzly bear has remained high.
FWS concedes that public support for recovery of the grizzly bear has increased and remains high in the August 2011, Five Year Review of the Status of the Grizzly Bear in the lower-48 states. In this document, nowhere does FWS suggest that public support is somehow contingent on what has happened or what may happen in the courts.
On page 95 of this review, FWS concluded: "overall we have seen an improvement in public perceptions and attitudes towards grizzly bears in the last several decades. The same government that once financially supported active extermination of the bear now uses its resources to protect the great symbol of American wildness. This change in government policy and practice is a product of changing public attitudes about the grizzly bear. Although attitudes about grizzlies vary geographically and demographically, there has been a widespread increase in positive attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its conservation, even among traditional conflict related communities like the ranching industry."
Dr. Servheen has provided not one shred of evidence to defend his claim that public support for the grizzly bear will drop off if FWS's management decisions are blocked by legal action, and if Yellowstone grizzly bears are kept on the endangered species list as a result of actions by the courts. This may well be because legal actions have been generally aimed to provide the bear with more protection than what the agencies would have otherwise granted -- and the public supports more precautionary and protective measures. The public expects the agency to use the best science and to follow the law, which in the case of the ESA means to give the benefit of the doubt to the species where there are issues of uncertainty
.
Dr. Servheen's statement also unjustly disparages the judiciary. Our democratic system relies on a balance between the judiciary, the executive branch and Congress: all branches of government are important, not just the executive branch that houses FWS. If the government oversteps its bounds, citizens representing the broader public interest can and should enforce the terms of laws like the Endangered Species Act. In fact, litigation has been one of the key ingredients that promoted progress towards grizzly recovery and many other species.
Successful citizen suits substantially improved grizzly management and conservation over the last two decades, and the public was supportive of these improvements. One classic example is the 1992 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, which defined grizzly recovery as only a numerical population target, ignoring the fact that habitat loss was one of the key threats that landed the grizzly bear in the lower-48 states on the endangered species list in 1975. Successful litigation by conservationists prompted the FWS to revise the plan to include habitat protection targets—a step that boosted the grizzly recovery program significantly. These changes were made with no negative response from the public.
The public has repeatedly demonstrated that it understands that bears need special care and the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to activities that might harm them. People understand too that in the case of the Yellowstone grizzly, the world the bear lives in has recently been turned upside down by climate change—and the related loss of a key food, whitebark pine, is having major impacts on the population. The public understands that things are changing rapidly for bears, and agrees adopting a precautionary approach is a sound one. FWS should listen more closely to what the public has actually been saying in asking for more protections for bears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone grizzlies die at higher rate than northern bears
Dave Smith
During the past decade, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Chris Servheen says an average of 19 grizzly bears a year have been killed in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, which currently has population of 900 grizzlies.
During the same time, an average of 29 grizzly bears a year have been killed in the Yellowstone region, which now has an estimated population of about 600 grizzlies.
Even more alarming, an average of 39 grizzlies a year perished in Yellowstone from 2007 to 2011. From 2002 to 2006, the average was 19 grizzlies a year.
The grizzly population for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem grew from 765 in 2004 to 900 today. The grizzly population for the Yellowstone region grew from 523 in 2004 to 600 today.
Why isYellowstone now averaging twice as many grizzly deaths when the region has a substantially smaller grizzly population than the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem?The main problem appears to be that Yellowstone's grizzlies used to feed heavily on high-fat, high-protien whitebark pine seeds, but a massive die-off of whitebark pine trees began around 2002. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team has been monitoring stands of whitebark pine since 2002. The Study Team's annual report for 2010 says, "Total mortality on transect trees read since 2002 is 72.6% and 94.7 of transects contain beetle-killed trees."
The report goes on to say, "Near exclusive use of whitebark pine seeds by grizzly bears has been associated with falls in which mean cone production on transects exceeds 20 cones/tree. Typically, numbers of grizzly bear-human conflicts and management actions tend to increase during years with poor cone availibility."
With 72.6% of whitebark pine trees dead, every year is a poor cone year.
In 2010, there were a record high 50 grizzly bear deaths in the Yellowstone region. In addition, there were a record high 295 bear-human conflicts.
Dr. Servheen said: "If we are blocked by the legal system, if conservation is not achievable, support for grizzly bear conservation will drop off." The fact is that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)'s grizzly management efforts have been blocked by the legal system many times over the last several decades, when the agency could not justify its decisions using the best available science, and when its actions violated the Endangered Species Act—and public support has not dropped off.
That is because the public expects FWS to follow the law and use the best available science to recover endangered species. There have been at least 10 successful cases brought by conservationists against the federal government over the past 25 years – cases that improved conditions on the ground for the bear -- and public support for the grizzly bear has remained high.
FWS concedes that public support for recovery of the grizzly bear has increased and remains high in the August 2011, Five Year Review of the Status of the Grizzly Bear in the lower-48 states. In this document, nowhere does FWS suggest that public support is somehow contingent on what has happened or what may happen in the courts.
On page 95 of this review, FWS concluded: "overall we have seen an improvement in public perceptions and attitudes towards grizzly bears in the last several decades. The same government that once financially supported active extermination of the bear now uses its resources to protect the great symbol of American wildness. This change in government policy and practice is a product of changing public attitudes about the grizzly bear. Although attitudes about grizzlies vary geographically and demographically, there has been a widespread increase in positive attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its conservation, even among traditional conflict related communities like the ranching industry."
Dr. Servheen has provided not one shred of evidence to defend his claim that public support for the grizzly bear will drop off if FWS's management decisions are blocked by legal action, and if Yellowstone grizzly bears are kept on the endangered species list as a result of actions by the courts. This may well be because legal actions have been generally aimed to provide the bear with more protection than what the agencies would have otherwise granted -- and the public supports more precautionary and protective measures. The public expects the agency to use the best science and to follow the law, which in the case of the ESA means to give the benefit of the doubt to the species where there are issues of uncertainty
.
Dr. Servheen's statement also unjustly disparages the judiciary. Our democratic system relies on a balance between the judiciary, the executive branch and Congress: all branches of government are important, not just the executive branch that houses FWS. If the government oversteps its bounds, citizens representing the broader public interest can and should enforce the terms of laws like the Endangered Species Act. In fact, litigation has been one of the key ingredients that promoted progress towards grizzly recovery and many other species.
Successful citizen suits substantially improved grizzly management and conservation over the last two decades, and the public was supportive of these improvements. One classic example is the 1992 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, which defined grizzly recovery as only a numerical population target, ignoring the fact that habitat loss was one of the key threats that landed the grizzly bear in the lower-48 states on the endangered species list in 1975. Successful litigation by conservationists prompted the FWS to revise the plan to include habitat protection targets—a step that boosted the grizzly recovery program significantly. These changes were made with no negative response from the public.
The public has repeatedly demonstrated that it understands that bears need special care and the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to activities that might harm them. People understand too that in the case of the Yellowstone grizzly, the world the bear lives in has recently been turned upside down by climate change—and the related loss of a key food, whitebark pine, is having major impacts on the population. The public understands that things are changing rapidly for bears, and agrees adopting a precautionary approach is a sound one. FWS should listen more closely to what the public has actually been saying in asking for more protections for bears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone grizzlies die at higher rate than northern bears
Dave Smith
During the past decade, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Chris Servheen says an average of 19 grizzly bears a year have been killed in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, which currently has population of 900 grizzlies.
During the same time, an average of 29 grizzly bears a year have been killed in the Yellowstone region, which now has an estimated population of about 600 grizzlies.
Even more alarming, an average of 39 grizzlies a year perished in Yellowstone from 2007 to 2011. From 2002 to 2006, the average was 19 grizzlies a year.
The grizzly population for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem grew from 765 in 2004 to 900 today. The grizzly population for the Yellowstone region grew from 523 in 2004 to 600 today.
Why isYellowstone now averaging twice as many grizzly deaths when the region has a substantially smaller grizzly population than the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem?The main problem appears to be that Yellowstone's grizzlies used to feed heavily on high-fat, high-protien whitebark pine seeds, but a massive die-off of whitebark pine trees began around 2002. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team has been monitoring stands of whitebark pine since 2002. The Study Team's annual report for 2010 says, "Total mortality on transect trees read since 2002 is 72.6% and 94.7 of transects contain beetle-killed trees."
The report goes on to say, "Near exclusive use of whitebark pine seeds by grizzly bears has been associated with falls in which mean cone production on transects exceeds 20 cones/tree. Typically, numbers of grizzly bear-human conflicts and management actions tend to increase during years with poor cone availibility."
With 72.6% of whitebark pine trees dead, every year is a poor cone year.
In 2010, there were a record high 50 grizzly bear deaths in the Yellowstone region. In addition, there were a record high 295 bear-human conflicts.
Posts
2 comments:
I think in addition to the white bark pine die-off is the problem with Yellowstone Lake being invaded with Lake trout. Grizzlies used to congregate around the Lake eating native Cutthroats, but no more. That's 2 important pieces of their diet that have disappeared.
spot on Leslie you are!
Post a Comment