"We should remember that just thirty years ago Yellowstone's grizzlies teetered on the verge of extinction".... "With the slowest reproductive rate of any mammal in North America, the grizzly bear is especially vulnerable to human threats, including the recent collapse of two key food sources, whitebark pine seeds and Yellowstone cutthroat trout due to climate change, drought and nonnative disease"......"Let the scientists have the time they need to provide competent, neutral and quality research"..... "Ensure that the public trust is truly being protected by access to the best available science and stop playing politics with the future of Yellowstone's iconic grizzly"----------Louisa Wilcox of the Natural Resources Defense Council making the same plea that this blog made a couple of weeks back asking for the Interior Dept not to jump the gun on Grizzzly delisting before the scientific facts are analyzed surrounding the bears ability to survive in the face of whitebark pine and cutthroat trout decline across its range

Department of Interior again prejudges science related to Yellowstone grizzly bears

|

In a July 19th letter to Wyoming Governor Matthew Mead, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar said that scientific analysis currently underway on the relationship between whitebark pine and grizzly bears would bolster the agency's case supporting removal of Endangered Species Act protections from Yellowstone grizzly bears by 2014.

 But this science is not yet finished, and Salazar expects that process to take 18 months. The reason that the process will take so long is that, according to Salazar, "the synthesis involves a significant amount of reanalysis of existing data on the relationship between whitebark pine changes and grizzly bear vital rates, as well as existing data sets from 2002- 2013 time periods on the data to better evaluate these factors."

If this analysis is not yet done, how is DOI so sure it will support its position to again propose delisting? The wiser, more considered, scientifically justified and rational position is to wait until the analysis is completed before making a policy decision—one that will presumably be based on the best science. The public expects public servants to protect the public trust; prejudging the results of science that is still only now beginning raises legitimate suspicions that its actions are biased.

This is not how a system of good governance should work. DOI should let the scientists at US Geologic Survey do their job, and then wait for the final results to decide what to do next for the fate of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Since the Yellowstone grizzly bear is an icon of wildness and symbol of Yellowstone National Park, it deserves no less than the greatest consideration and the best neutral science when making decisions about its future.

We should remember that just thirty years ago Yellowstone's grizzlies teetered on the verge of extinction. With the slowest reproductive rate of any mammal in North America, the grizzly bear is especially vulnerable to human threats, including the recent collapse of two key food sources, whitebark pine seeds and Yellowstone cutthroat trout due to climate change, drought and nonnative disease.

How science has been and can be biased is a subtle affair; especially if only certain questions are asked and not others, the results can be skewed. In this case, key questions that are not being asked, as far as we can tell, which include: where are the alternative food sources in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and how well do they substitute for the loss of whitebark pine, and cutthroat trout? And, how do we know they will adequately compensate for bears at the time of year we know they will likely need them?

There is also the problem of making unjustified assumptions that underpin grant analysis. For example, how do we know that the number of females with cubs, which underlies population estimates, is an unbiased sample? And if we don't now collect data on what bears are actually eating and where they are in the absence of whitebark pine and cutthroat trout—which the government is not—how can we know that these food sources (e.g., earthworms, hornets, pondweed) are an adequate substitute for known, proven, high-calorie food sources that are no longer abundant?
Without this basic, ground-truthed information, agencies can claim to know what bears are doing and what the prognosis is, but the public lacks means to effectively critique their analysis and conclusions. This puts the public at a great disadvantage in the policy debate—a debate that should be based on full disclosure of the best science available.

Politics, including pressure to delist bears from officials in Wyoming, have too long dominated decision-making processes when it comes to Yellowstone's grizzly bears. Political pressure and over-hasty, irrational decision-making, in fact, contributed to a reversal of the Department of interior's recent attempt to delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear. It was in too much of a rush to claim victory and turn the keys to the car of bear management over to the states. It tried to rewrite 20 some years of whitebark pine research, and it fell on its face in front of two courts.

DOI should learn from this experience and do better this time. Let the scientists have the time they need to provide competent, neutral and quality research. Ensure that the public trust is truly being protected by access to the best available science and stop playing politics with the future of Yellowstone's iconic grizzly.