Issue Definition:

The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) once occupied diverse terrain throughout the western portion of North America. Upon the arrival of Europeans to their territory, the animal faced many new challenges such as persecution by humans out of fear, hunting for their valuable hides, and general habitat fragmentation and destruction. The factor the contributed most to the extreme decline of the grizzly bear was aggressive hunting that continued through the first half of the twentieth century. With the onset of the environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s, the plight of the grizzly bear became a greater social and political priority and was listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 1975.

The subsequent Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identified six areas in the continental United States that have habitat appropriate for grizzly bears and thus have been designated as grizzly bear recovery zones; the North Cascades Ecosystem is the second largest of these recovery zones but has the smallest grizzly bear population. Based on the most recent surveys and bear sightings, there are estimated to be no more than twenty individuals in the United States side of the recovery zone.

Population re-establishment in the North Cascades ecosystem faces substantial barriers. Surveys reveal that residents of the grizzly bear recovery zones are relatively sympathetic to the bears’ situation but are hesitant to support re-introduction or augmentation efforts; surveys also reveal a good understanding of grizzly-human conflict avoidance, but confusion and anxiety about environmental litigation associated with human-animal interactions under the Endangered Species Act. But the most substantial barrier to a healthy grizzly bear population establishment in the North Cascades is its lack of funding. This is most notably due a small pot of federal funds based on geographic location, and what some people refer to as “Rocky Mountain Syndrome.” These issues will be further expounded upon in the current challenges section of this piece.

Stakeholders:

There are a range of stakeholders to consider in this issue. The grizzly recovery zones often overlap with residential areas; landowners concerned about an increase in human-grizzly interactions. Ranchers in and around recovery zones fear not only predation on their young cattle by the bears, but also litigation that may follow should he or she take action against an aggressive bear. Park goers fear trail closures while environmentalists and conservationists delight at the possibility that one day there may be enough grizzlies in the recovery zone that such measures would be necessary. Additionally, there are proponents of the other listed species in region I of the Endangered Species Act that are competing with grizzly bear activists for limited federal funds.

Landowners­­- The presence of large predators in ecosystems around personal property has long caused anxiety in local home-owners. The same can be said of grizzly bears in bear country. In an effort to gain more public support and gage public awareness and knowledge of grizzlies, the Responsive Management group has administered various telephone surveys over the year in and around different grizzly management zones. In 2007, a survey was conducted in Lincoln and Sanders County—both counties lie within the boundaries of the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem Recovery Area in Montana. 54% of residents believed that grizzly bears could be dangerous to humans but a staggering 90% of interviewees confessed they believed that conflicts with grizzly bears were avoidable and were willing to revamp the waste disposal systems in town if it meant fewer grizzly intrusions. More locally, the Grizzly Bear Outreach Project commissioned Responsive Management to survey residents of both Whatcom and Skagit counties about their take on grizzly bears and how they felt about potentially living near a larger population of the bears. Only 11% of residence interviewed in Skagit and Whatcom County opposed Grizzly Bear recovery efforts in the North Cascades while 52% were strongly in support and 24% were in moderate support. This survey was performed in 2005.

Ranchers—National Park Service Wildlife Biologist, Anne Braaten, confesses that those in opposition to recovery efforts are often the most vocal. In the case of the grizzly bear population of the North Cascades, she names the Farm Bureau and Cattleman’s Association as some of the most outspoken opponents of the efforts. Grizzlies in Yellowstone and other areas that support more stable populations (such as recovery zones in Idaho and Montana) have been known to pray on young livestock. Based on various polling results and her personal interactions with these stakeholders, Braaten believes that most of the hesitation comes not from fear of the animal itself or even a misunderstanding of its habits, but rather from a fear of the environmental litigation and lawyers that may come with interaction with a listed species.

One recent example of such litigation took place in Porthill, ID. Jeremy Hill lives in Porthill, sandwiched between two grizzly bear recovery areas. He has six children between ten months and 14 years of age and a small number of livestock—mostly raised by his children for 4-H competitions. In May of 2011, two grizzly cubs and their mother walked onto Hill’s property. The grizzlies reportedly began going after some of the pigs in a pen in the yard while Hill’s children were outside playing basketball. The bears were perhaps too close for comfort and Hill chose to shoot and kill one of the bears. He immediately notified state authorities, but the federal government is charging Hill with the killing of an endangered species. This means Hill potentially faces a $50,000 fine and one year in prison along with thousands of dollars spent defending his non-guilty plea in court. Hill must prove that his family was in imminent danger in order to have the charges dropped. Many ranchers and landowners fear similar litigation if grizzly bear interactions become more common and they have little to protect themselves legally and financially.

Recreationalists—Roger Christopherson, another wildlife biologist working for the North Cascades National Park Complex, says he has seen a great variety to responses to grizzly bear recovery by recreationalists. Many believe that grizzlies are a symbol of the United States. They are beautiful and should be preserved. Other recreationalists fear that more grizzly bears will mean more trail closures and potentially dangerous human-bear interactions. Great measures have been taken in the area to bear-proof campsites as well as educate the public on how to behave in bear country and what to do if one does come into close contact with a grizzly.

Conservationists—It almost seems unnecessary to define where conservationists stand on the issue of grizzly bear population recovery. Most would agree with John Muir when he said: “Bears are not companions of men, but children of God, and His charity is broad enough for both…we seek to establish a narrow line between ourselves and the feathery zeros we dare to call angels, but ask a partition barrier of infinite width to show the rest of creation its proper place. Yet bears are made of the same dust as we, and breathe the same winds and drink of the same waters. A bears days are warmed by the same sun, his dwellings are overdomed by the same blue sky, and his life turns and ebbs with heart-pulsings like ours and was poured from the same fountain.” Not only are conservationists in general agreement that grizzlies have their own intrinsic value, they recognize the important role of grizzly bears in the ecology of the North Cascades ecosystem. The diet of the grizzlies in the North Cascades is suspected to be 90% plant material, making grizzlies an important player in seed dispersal. They do prey upon ungulates—but generally just the old and the young—and could therefor keep ungulate populations healthy and in check. Because the grizzly bears in the Cascades are thought to be the last salmon-eating grizzly bears in the lower 48, their genetic information is extremely important to the continuation of the species as a whole and their genetic diversity.

History:

Fossil records indicate that the first bear-like creatures appeared on the planet twenty million years ago with the appearance of the Ursavus elmensis. Unlike the large, present-day Grizzly, Ursavus elmensis was small—only the size of a fox terrier—and lived in what was subtropical Europe during the Miocene epoch. The more recent and direct ancestor of the grizzly is thought to be the Ursus etruscus, whose fossil records date back to 1.5 million years ago and is the species from which our present day brown bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus) diverged. The grizzly bear, or Ursus arctos horribilis, is a subspecies of the brown bear that originally occupied much of western North America.

It is predicted that at the time Lewis and Clark were exploring the western United States, there were between 50,000 and 100,000 in the lower 48, their range extending from the Great Plains to the west coast, southern border to northern border. Upon the arrival of Europeans to the United States, grizzly population numbers fell quickly; not only were their pelts extremely sought after, they were hunted out of fear as well. In just a century, grizzly bears lost 98% of their habitat and today occupy only 2% of their original range. More locally, biologists estimate that before Europeans arrived in the Pacific Northwest, the North Cascades ecosystem was home to almost 1,000 grizzly bears. This number fell rapidly, mostly due to poaching. Between 1827 and 1859, Hudson Bay Company records reveal that 3,788 grizzly pelts were shipped from trading posts in the Pacific Northwest. From 1900-1967, there were another 66 known poachings of grizzly bears in the North Cascades. By 1860, there were only 300 grizzly bears in the North Cascades and today, no experts believe there are more than twenty in the United States portion of the ecosystem. The Canadian side of the ecosystem is host to about twenty five extremely isolated bears and is the most endangered population in the country.

One of the greatest impetuses for grizzly bear protection was the mismanagement of the Yellowstone National Park grizzly bears. In the early 1900s, one of Yellowstone greatest attractions was its grizzly bear population. To capitalize on public interest in the bears, the park established bear feeding sites throughout the park. Because it was observed that grizzly bears were attracted to poorly secured dumpsters containing food waste, these feeding sites had a secondary function as dumps. Bears visited frequently and in large numbers and came to depend on this food source.

As ecological and scientific knowledge advanced, park management began to realize that these feeding stations could have negative effects on the bear populations, so in 1972, the dumpsites were cleaned up and closed down. Large numbers of grizzly bears awoke from their hibernation to find one of their largest food sources gone; they became desperately hungry and dangerous, associating humans with food. In other words, the habituated bears came a little too close for comfort and hundreds of nuisance bears were killed that year. This massacre drew a lot of public attention and in 1975, grizzly bears were listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. The Washington population of grizzly bears technically qualifies as endangered, but federal funds cannot currently cover an up-listing of the animal. This population is also of particular genetic interest because they are the last known salmon-eating grizzlies in the lower 48.

It is not enough to simply call a species endangered or threatened and leave it at that; the process requires that a recovery plan follow. In the case of the grizzly bear, extensive habitat studies were conducted to identify “Recovery Zones,” or ecosystems that have enough appropriate habitat to support a self-sustaining population of that animal. The North Cascades Ecosystem was one of six ecosystems to be identified as such spaces. The others are the Selkirks in Eastern Washington and Western Idaho, the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem in Montana and Idaho, The Northern Continental Divide ecosystem in Montana, the Bitterroot ecosystem in Idaho, and Yellowstone in Wyoming. The North Cascades Ecosystem lies in Region 1 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s zonation and also is not in the Rocky Mountains—two geographical details that contribute greatly to the North Cascades grizzly’s current plight.

The current challenge:

In the case of the grizzly bear, the resource that is most essential for its recovery but in shortest supply is not a natural one—it is money. Management and recovery plans are expensive, and especially in an economic climate like today, the cost can seem insurmountable.

The location of the North Cascades Ecosystem seems to be the greatest obstacle to acquiring money for the grizzly bears—surveys, management, and otherwise. The North Cascades are part of Region I of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s zonations. Also in that region are the Pacific Island territories, Hawaii, Oregon, and Idaho. Each region is allotted only a certain amount of money to spend on listed species; in other words, all endangered or threatened species in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands has to share their federal money. It generally does not shake down in the North Cascades Grizzly’s favor. For one thing, the Grizzly Bear is only listed as threatened, not endangered, due to its higher numbers nationally. Additionally, there are 510 listed species in the Pacific Islands alone to compete with; in 2011, 7.8 million of the federal money for Region I listed species went to the Pacific Islands while only 4.5 million went to Washington. This 4.5 million then has to be shared by all 20 listed species in the state which includes such heavy-hitters as the Spotted Owl and various salmon species.

Additionally, grizzly bear biologists in the North Cascades Ecosystem cite “Rocky Mountain Syndrome” as a player in the funding game. Essentially, the grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains are very high profile animals. These areas are more traveled and settled so the grizzlies are much more visible to the public. There are also much higher numbers of grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains, with almost 600 in Yellowstone alone and almost 1,000 in the Northern Continental Divide recovery area. Recently, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bears were de-listed from the Endangered Species Act by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They were then sued by bear activists and the grizzly was again labeled as threatened in 2009. The litigation is ongoing as U.S. Fish and Wildlife battles again to down-list the bear. This litigation and studies needed to support this down-listing is, needless to say, costly—both on the side of U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the conservation organizations that could be lending financial support to recovery efforts in the North Cascades instead of using that money to fight each other.

It appears to make sense that the grizzly bears in the other recovery areas would receive more attention—there are simply more of them. Perhaps it is telling that John Almack, the Washington Fish and Wildlife biologist in charge of fielding all claims of grizzly bear sightings, was also put in charge of investigating all big foot sightings in the state during his time working there in the nineties. Between 1967 and 1991, there were only twenty confirmed grizzly bear observations in the U.S. portion of the North Cascades Ecosystem Recovery Zone—this included 9 different observations of grizzly tracks, 1 food cache, 6 visual observations, and one that was killed in 1967. Biologists agree that there are no more than twenty grizzly bears in the U.S. portion of the recovery area. On the Canadian side, there is an isolated population of grizzly bears of about 20-25 individuals. None of these estimates indicate what biologists would call a sustainable population size. Biologist, Anne Braaten, who works on grizzly bear surveys in the National Park portion of the recovery zone cites lack of access to likely grizzly habitat as one of the reasons population estimates are so low. Braaten says that grizzly bears in the North Cascades are likely to be in very remote areas. Many of these areas are deep in official wilderness or no motorized vehicle zones, meaning that biologists could not simply fly in to survey. The best sites, she says, are probably at least a three-day, technical hike into the back country. Aside from the strenuous nature of such a hike with an extra sixty pounds of survey equipment each, technicians would likely be carrying highly odoriferous bear bate for days and days through bear country. This is simply not a wise choice.

Amongst biologists, there is a scientific consensus that the only way to save the grizzly bear of the North Cascades is to augment the population by bringing in grizzly bears from other populations. Grizzly Bear populations grow very slowly. Females will only reproduce once every 3-5 years that will yield a 2-4 cub litter; they do not reproduce while raising their litter which usually takes about two or three years. The maximum number of cubs a female grizzly bear will have in her lifetime is about ten. It is a very slow process and the professionals say population growth and eventual stabilization hinges on augmentation of the very small population in the cascades at present.

Unfortunately, that augmentation hinges on the NEPA process—most notably the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. The environmental impact statement would involve extensive survey work and ultimately result in a list of management suggestions—from no action to augmentation to re-introduction. Investigation for this statement generally takes about three years to complete and it has been estimated that it would cost about 1.5 million dollars. Braaten says, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife is responsible for recovering species.” In other words, this process must be initiated and carried out by the over-extended, financially wounded federal agency. The North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was drawn up in 1997. In it, it was suggested that an Environmental Impact Statement be accomplished in the next five years. It is 2012 and most are doubtful that an EIS is on the horizon.

Prospect for Resolution:

On October 21, 2010, a hiker in the North Cascades National Park Complex took a photo of a bear he encountered on his hike. After realizing the bear looked significantly different than the more common black bear, the hiker submitted his photos to the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Technical Team. It was then sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator, Servheen. The photos were then dispersed to fifteen different grizzly bear biologists around the country. Fourteen of the fifteen biologists confirmed that it was a grizzly while none believed it to be a black bear. This confirmed grizzly sighting raised national awareness and was even covered in the New York Times. Bear supporters are hopeful that this exposure will lead to more public support for recovery efforts.

Chris Servheen is the grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He believes that one of the best hopes for eventually finding the funding for an EIS in the North Cascades Ecosystem would be de-listing the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.

Until the Environmental Impact Statement can occur, local, state, and non-profit organizations are laying the foundation for support through educating the public. The North Cascades National Park Complex has put a lot of time into bear-proofing campgrounds in the complex and educating their visitors about appropriate storage and behavior in bear-country. The Grizzly Bear Outreach Project, based out of Bellingham, has done amazing work to provide accurate information about grizzly bear behavior and legal matters. Chris Morgan, the founder of the group, aims to educate the public but also provide forums for those living in recovery areas to express their opinions and concerns.

Due to surveys conducted by this group and many more in Washington state, it appears that while we await an EIS, one of the most pressing tasks for grizzly bear supporters will be education of the populous on how the presence of grizzly bears will affect them legally.