--- This message was sent by rick.meril@gmail.com via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.
To stop receiving any emails from AddThis, please visit: http://www.addthis.com/privacy/email-opt-out?e=RYYi.DP6fvw14zn9fuU_6D__EPM8_jf2NeN.8j_8
- Find NRDC on:
- → Top Stories:
- Fracking
- Safe Chemicals
- Defending the Clean Air Act
Christine Wilcox’s Blog
Grizzly Bear Conflicts in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem: It's Time
for More Solutions and Less Killing
Posted September 5, 2014 in Saving Wildlife and WIld Places
Recent reports say conflicts with grizzly bears
in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were
down in 2013. That may be true for the region
as a whole (which is great news), but it’s
definitely not the case in the Upper Green
River area of Wyoming, just southeast of
Grand Teton National Park.
in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were
down in 2013. That may be true for the region
as a whole (which is great news), but it’s
definitely not the case in the Upper Green
River area of Wyoming, just southeast of
Grand Teton National Park.
Grizzly bear prints near Green River
Lakes, Upper Green River area, Wyoming
The Upper Green has been a hot spot for
conflicts with grizzlies for more than ten
years now. Why? Because the Upper
Green has naturally prime grizzly bear
habitat and a yearly food source provided
by people in the form of unprotected
livestock. This combination has led to
an increase in the number of grizzly
bears using the Upper Green area,
despite the fact that the population at
large is no longer growing very much
and may even be declining.
Earlier this week the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service issued a new biological
opinion with its recommendations and
requirements for managing conflicts in
the Upper Green area. This is the third
time in five years that the Service has
had to change the biological opinion
because of the increasing number of
grizzlies being killed for attacking
livestock. It is also the third time in
five years that the agencies have
had a chance to change the way
they address conflicts.
Wildlife Service issued a new biological
opinion with its recommendations and
requirements for managing conflicts in
the Upper Green area. This is the third
time in five years that the Service has
had to change the biological opinion
because of the increasing number of
grizzlies being killed for attacking
livestock. It is also the third time in
five years that the agencies have
had a chance to change the way
they address conflicts.
But rather than requiring measures to
improve coexistence with grizzly bears
and reduce conflicts with them, the Fish
and Wildlife Service again increased the
number of grizzly bears that it anticipates
will be killed due to livestock grazing.
Even more alarming is the Service’s
decision to more than double the
number of females that can be killed.
What we are left with is more grizzly
bear deaths and virtually no changes
to address the ongoing conflicts with
livestock. But there are effective ways
to reduce conflicts that are good for
livestock and good for bears. Range
riders, electric fencing, and guard dogs
could be used to protect livestock.
Alternative grazing practices like
keeping cattle bunched together,
and ensuring that mothers and
calves stay together, could reduce
the chance of bears attacking cattle.
Since calves are often targeted when
bears attack cattle, eliminating calves
on the Upper Green grazing allotments
could also prove to be effective in
reducing conflicts.
bear deaths and virtually no changes
to address the ongoing conflicts with
livestock. But there are effective ways
to reduce conflicts that are good for
livestock and good for bears. Range
riders, electric fencing, and guard dogs
could be used to protect livestock.
Alternative grazing practices like
keeping cattle bunched together,
and ensuring that mothers and
calves stay together, could reduce
the chance of bears attacking cattle.
Since calves are often targeted when
bears attack cattle, eliminating calves
on the Upper Green grazing allotments
could also prove to be effective in
reducing conflicts.
For those familiar with the area, there
is no question that implementing some
coexistence measures to reduce
conflicts with livestock would be more
difficult in the Upper Green than on other
landscapes. The Upper Green is filled
with steep terrain and many areas that
are harder for people to access than
bears or livestock. But that does not
mean that we should just give up
because solutions are more difficult
or costly.
If we want to reduce conflicts in the
Upper Green, we need to think outside
the box. NRDC and other conservation
groups have been encouraging the
agencies to consider creative solutions.
For instance, stakeholders could
work together to secure funding for
research that would help implement
more coexistence measures. This
would also provide information on
which coexistence practices work
best in the Upper Green area.
Wildlife Services is already researching
some of these coexistence practices
on other landscapes. We applaud this
work and hope that it can serve as a
model and perhaps even a resource
for much needed research in the Upper
Green area.
Upper Green, we need to think outside
the box. NRDC and other conservation
groups have been encouraging the
agencies to consider creative solutions.
For instance, stakeholders could
work together to secure funding for
research that would help implement
more coexistence measures. This
would also provide information on
which coexistence practices work
best in the Upper Green area.
Wildlife Services is already researching
some of these coexistence practices
on other landscapes. We applaud this
work and hope that it can serve as a
model and perhaps even a resource
for much needed research in the Upper
Green area.
The Forest Service
estimates that female
grizzly bear survival has
declined on all but
two of the public grazing
allotments in the
Upper Green area. This means
that removing
female grizzlies from these
allotments is
negatively impacting the
overall Greater
Yellowstone population. State
and federal
agencies only expect female grizzlies
to use this
area more and more in the future, so
the challenges
to female (and cub) survival are only
expected
to increase.
Something must change if we want to ensure continued
recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Managing conflicts between grizzly bears, livestock
and people is critical to the long-term success of the
bruins -- not only in the Upper Green area but
throughout the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Managing conflicts between grizzly bears, livestock
and people is critical to the long-term success of the
bruins -- not only in the Upper Green area but
throughout the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
Solutions exist. What we need is the resources and
the will to implement them. Turning a blind eye to the
problem, as the Service has done here, is not the way
to go.
the will to implement them. Turning a blind eye to the
problem, as the Service has done here, is not the way
to go.
Photo credit: Sublette County Emergency
Management, Jim Mitchell
Management, Jim Mitchell
Posts
GEorge Wuerthner — Sep 6 2014 01:44 PM
bears to co-exist, but to get rid of welfare
ranching in places like the Upper Green River.
ecologically ignorant perspective on how
livestock destroys grizzly habitat--as well as
a lot of other wildlife.
which are among the most important foraging
areas for grizzlies in the spring and early summer.
which leave areas with livestock--in essence
creating the conflict one is trying to address.
It also reduces the fitness of elk herds in general
meaning less natural food for grizzlies.
Livestock also are the center of controversies
on brucellosis. So we are killing bison and elk
in staste like Montana which are a critical and
important food resource for grizzlies.
presence of livestock negatively impacts
grizzlies.
are grazing also reduces the overall habitat
available to them, as well as the security cover
they require.
enough or ecologically informed enough to state
the obvious. NRDC half way measures are like
saying we should keep dams on salmon streams
and put in more fish ladders instead of advocating
that dams be removed