Species Protection Law Key to Grizzly Survival

By Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, July 23, 2002 (ENS) - Protection under federal and state law is critical to conserving grizzly bears in the lower 48 states, a new report concludes. The study could offer support for legislation aimed at strengthening the federal Endangered Species Act, and counter arguments for weakening protections for grizzly bears.

Grizzly bears in the lower 48 states have benefited from federal protection, a new study concludes. (Three photos by Tom Smith, courtesy USGS)

"This is direct evidence for the dramatic beneficial effect of conservation policies enacted through legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act," write David Mattson of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Colorado Plateau Field Station and Troy Merrill of LTB Consulting, in the August issue of the journal "Conservation Biology."

The grizzly bear is listed as a threatened species in the lower 48 states under the Endangered Species Act. There are about 1,100 grizzly bears in these states, in five separate populations in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington.

To help find the best way to protect grizzly bears, Mattson and Merrill determined factors that correlated with the species' survival since 1850. The researchers considered a variety of factors including the availability of foods such as salmon, bison and whitebark pine trees, which have large seeds that the bears eat. Other factors examined by the team included habitat type and size, the presence of livestock and agriculture, and the density of people in grizzly habitat.

Mattson and Merrill found three factors that strongly correlate with the survival of grizzly bears today: the presence of whitebark pines, large ranges and low human density. One thing these factors have in common is that they help keep grizzlies away from people, who have been the primary cause of the species' decline.

Grizzlies prefer roadless wilderness, but can live closer to humans if under federal protection, the study suggests.

Grizzly bear populations have also been more likely to survive in contiguous ranges that are greater than 7,700 square miles. In 1970, the only populations with more than 200 grizzlies were in the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide recovery areas designated by the Department of Interior, both of which exceed 7,700 square miles.

While the Bitterroot and North Cascades recovery areas also approach this size, they have few if any grizzly bears. The other two recovery areas are smaller than 2,700 square miles.

Grizzly bears have been more likely to survive in areas with few people. Before 1970, grizzly populations were far more likely to survive where the density of people was less than 1.3 per square mile. Today, however, grizzlies are persisting at much higher human densities: about fivepeople per square mile for Yellowstone and eight people per square mile in the Northern Continental Divide recovery area.

Mattson and Merrill attribute the grizzly bears' current survival at higher human densities to legal protections such as the Endangered Species Act.

"Our results show that changes in human attitudes and behavior have been critical to the survival of grizzly bears from 1970 to the present," wrote the researchers.

Without federal protection, grizzlies in the lower 48 states could be looking at a dim future.

"These results argue for continued stringent protection of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk and North Cascade ranges and high priority restoration of bears in the Bitterroot Range," the researchers said.

In June 2001, in one of her first official acts, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would withdraw a federal plan to reintroduce grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem of Idaho and Montana. The agency had announced plans to reintroduce the bears in November 2000, under the Clinton administration.

Besides arguing that the Interior Department move ahead with the Bitterroot reintroduction, the study by Mattson and Merrill also undermines suggestions that some grizzly populations be removed by the endangered species list.

Seeds from whitebark pine cones are a preferred food for grizzly bears, but these trees are threatened by an invasive disease. (Photo by Kate Kendall, courtesy USGS)

"Such vulnerability ... argues for the inadvisability of removing any legal protections for this [grizzly bear] population," wrote Mattson and Merrill.

The report also supports arguments to maintain the current regulatory powers of the Endangered Species Act, or even to strengthen the law. Congress is now considering two bills, which would have opposite impacts on the Act.

In April, Representatives George Miller of California and Frank Pallone of New Jersey - both Democrats - introduced the Endangered Species Recovery Act (ESRA - HR 4579), which would reauthorize and strengthen the Endangered Species Act.

Representative George Miller has cosponsored a bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Endangered Species Act, but Republican controlled House committees have stalled the bill. (Photo courtesy Office of Representative Miller)

"By implementing recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences designed to improve the scientific basis for important endangered species decisions, ESRA makes sure that we use the best science available," said Susan Holmes, policy expert for Earthjustice. "It requires that independent scientists peer review large scale habitat conservation plans; and means that biologists, not politicians are telling us what it will take to recover an imperiled species."

The bill is currently stalled in House Resources Committee, which has requested an executive comment on the measure from the Interior Department, and in the House Ways and Means Committee.

In contrast, a bill to weaken the Endangered Species Act was passed by the House Resources Committee on July 10 with a 22-18 vote, and sent to the full House. The Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2002 (HR 4840) was introduced in May by three Republican Representatives: Jim Hansen of Utah, Richard Pombo of California, and Greg Walden of Oregon.

The bill would legislate what types of science could be used to make decisions under the Act, removing language requiring the use of "best-available science."

Representative Richard Pombo cosponsored a bill that environmental groups and many scientists warn would weaken the Endangered Species Act. (Photo courtesy Office of Representative Pombo)

The day of the House committee vote on HR 4840, an environmental coalition sent a letter opposing the bill, signed by more than 300 scientists, including prominent members of the National Academy of Sciences, to members of Congress. The letter sets forth "principles that need to guide reflection on science and the Endangered Species Act," and calls on Congress to allow scientific data used in endangered species decisions to be "identified and analyzed by scientists free from political pressure and with adequate resources."

"Unless peer review processes and scientific methodologies are defined and managed by scientists, they have no credibility," said Dr. David Blockstein, a leading conservation biologist. "The hallmark of science is an independent search for truth - we all must respect that process and support it."

Nineteen of the nation's largest environmental groups also sent a letter to Congress calling for opposition to HR 4840, calling it a stealth attempt to undermine science and impede implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

"This is nothing but another attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act," said Susan Holmes, legislative representative for Earthjustice. "At a time when many species hover on the brink of extinction and need immediate, scientifically based action to ensure their survival, this legislation would be devastating."