Politics and suburban growth threaten grizzlies and wolves

MISSOULA-De Endangered Species Act has brought both grizzly bears and wolves back from the brink of extinction in the US

But as politics and human expansion deteriorate, will the recovery continue, and do we have the will to make it happen?

Those were the two questions par excellence biologists tried to tackle Wednesday evening in a presentation titled “The Future of Grizzlies and Wolves in Montana.”

The recorded wolf howl that greeted about 200 people entering the Wilma Theater was a signal of what was to come during the discussion. Meanwhile, depicted on screen, grizzly bears prowled through forests or tugged at bison carcasses.

Journalist and moderator Todd Wilkinson first asked how many people had seen a wolf or a grizzly bear in the wild. After quite a few people raised their hands, he reminded them that Montana was one of only three states in the country where they could do that.

Even in these three states, the two species are at risk, as evidenced by the recent death of the famous grizzly bear 399. A motor vehicle struck the 28-year-old bear south of Jackson Hole, Wyo., on Oct. 22, killing the whereabouts of her cub, Spirit, remains unknown.

“She’s a bear that allows us to distill our thoughts about grizzly bears, why individual bears matter and the tremendous attention they command,” Wilkinson said. “We’re going to talk about why grizzly bears and why wolves are important.”

Chris Servheen, a former grizzly bear coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, had helped lead a decision to spare 399’s life after she was involved in a short-lived conflict.

It was a good decision because Servheen said she was moderate and calm – not the demon kind portrayed by some – and she taught her 24 cubs how to deal with people’s problems safely.

But now more and more newcomers are moving into the northern Rocky Mountains, increasing pressure on grizzly bears by filling their habitat with homes and recreating in bear habitat in greater numbers.

Servheen showed a time-lapse series from 1950 to 2021 of growth in Montana — the red dots representing houses gradually washed out many areas, especially in western Montana.

Servheen said suburban sprawl and more people recreating outdoors are a growing problem for wildlife. Land development decisions must take the needs of wildlife into account.

Wilkinson said Bozeman is growing at a rate of 4% to 5%, so it will double in size within 18 years. Projections show the Bozeman area will be the size of Minneapolis by 2065, Wilkinson said.

“In the Greater Yellowstone area, about a quarter is private land (mainly in the valleys). All those valleys are crucial connective tissue for all wildlife. The big elephant in the room is what is happening in our valleys: how are the animals going to move between the mountains?” Wilkinson said.

Many new residents don’t know how to live with grizzlies, so they become “more tense” when bears are around, Wilkinson said.

Buoyed by that and the old-fashioned “anti-predator hysteria” that dominates the thinking of some, Servheen said, politicians in Montana have recently passed several regulations that have increased the threat to grizzly bears and other wildlife, including the hunting of black bears and the hunting of wolves. at night.

Montana FWP

Politicians are also pushing for it remove the grizzly bearciting the population estimate of approximately 2,000 grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide and Greater Yellowstone ecosystems as evidence that the species has recovered.

But “recovery is more than just the number of bears,” Servheen said. Adequate regulatory mechanisms must also be in place to ensure the species’ continued existence. That is being scrubbed away.

Before 2020, Servheen advocated delisting grizzly bears, but all the anti-predator bills passed by Montana’s Republican governor and lawmakers changed his mind.

“I am against removing the list, because biological decisions are now made by politicians. For thirty years, I had great confidence in the state fish and wildlife biologists in all states, who made decisions based on scientific facts. Recently we saw the politicians in the state suppressing biologists and starting to make biological decisions themselves about how many wolves we should have and new methods to kill them,” Servheen said. “When politicians make biological decisions, bad things happen.”

Biologist Doug Smith worked for Yellowstone National Park for a quarter centuryin which gray wolves were reintroduced to the area. He was able to study and document previously unknown wolf behavior and demographics in the largely natural environment of Yellowstone Park. He knows how wolves are both different from and similar to grizzly bears.

While grizzly bears remain protected on one side of the boundary line, wolves crossed over to the other side when they were delisted in 2011. While wolves are protected within the park, they can be killed once they cross the park boundary line. And that is happening more and more often.

Recent changes in the law have allowed wolves to be killed in more and more ways, while efforts to ban practices such as bounties and swatting, in which people hit wolves with motor vehicles, have failed.

When wolves are killed, pack females respond by producing more pups. Wolves can therefore survive an annual mortality rate of up to 30%. While that sounds like it weakens the case against more killing, Smith said, the downside is that the packs often lose the wisdom and knowledge of their elders, leaving the younger members with more problems with other wolves and livestock, so conflict isn’t necessarily reduced . by killing wolves.

MTN News File

Before 2021, two hunting districts in Montana on the northern park boundary provided a buffer — Smith called it a “soft border” — where only three to four wolves could be killed.

In 2021, the quota increased to 19, which, combined with Wyoming and Idaho’s wolf quotas, meant that 20% of Yellowstone Park’s wolf population was targeted. That’s less than 30% mortality, so some claimed the population would be doing well.

But Smith said he was responsible for protecting and preserving natural systems in the park and that the number of human-caused deaths was not natural.

“The animals don’t know where the line is, and it’s hard for an animal to go from full protection to no protection across an invisible line,” Smith said. “That’s why it’s important to work out these things – that we had already worked out. And it is a political change that did that. We want to change that kind of approach.”

While wolf populations can tolerate poor state management, grizzly bears cannot, Smith said. Grizzlies have delayed maturation and low productivity; most have only one to two cubs that take two seasons to raise.

“Wolves live in a hurry. Most wolves die at the age of 5 or 6 years, although they can live longer. (Grizzly) 399 was 28,” Smith said. “If you make a mistake with an animal that is very productive, it is forgiving. If you make a mistake with an animal like (grizzlies), the mistake lasts for years.”

Smith said he did not call for the wolf relisting because it could result in a response that would make politics even more controversial, meaning small victories like reducing wolf-killing quotas in the park, could be lost. But if the rules for wolves continue to erode, wolves should be put back on the list, Smith said.

Both Servheen and Smith said a return to science-based wildlife management is needed. Politics must be removed, especially when poll after poll shows that Montanans value nature.

Servheen said better management is needed to delist the grizzly bear, and Smith said this is necessary to prevent the wolf from being reintroduced to the market. Wilkinson said growth plans were needed to better manage human sprawl. They all encouraged people to vote for people who would support science and nature.

“These animals don’t need to be demonized; they are native species that have to live here,” says Servheen. “The states can be proud that they are one of the few places where these animals still live. Instead, some influential politicians view grizzly bears and wolves as a burden and an inconvenience. They are not a burden, they are not an inconvenience. They are a responsibility.”

The presentation was sponsored by the Cinnabar Foundation, Montana Wilderness Foundation, National Parks Conservation Association and the Yellowstonian.

Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at [email protected].