Grizzly delisting - The end goal

[Big Fin]

I've been mentioning over the last few months the differences in Conservation versus Environmentalism. I've talked about it on our podcasts, most recently the Gritty Bowmen podcast. I've written about it here.

One big difference the scholars point to that differentiates Conservation from Environmentalism is management authority. Conservation has been built on State management authority, both from our court cases starting in 1842 and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Environmentalism promotes the notion of Federal oversight and has been effective in using the courts to accomplish that.

Why does it matter? Here is a good example. It has to do with the grizzly bear delisting issue, but was also in play during the wolf delisting and will be in play for all species that can be brought under the ESA.

Dave Mattson proclaims to be a a grizzly bear expert, and he may very well be. He gets a lot of citation from those opposed to grizzly delisting.

Here is a link to an article interviewing him. A friendly confine for him to promote his views, which is just fine.

http://mtpr.org/post/biologist-yellowstone-grizzlies-cant-afford-any-increase-mortality#stream/0


What is revealing to me is that for the first time, one of their appointed experts has explained the one of the primary goals of keeping bears on the ESA list. Read the quote below and let me know your thoughts. Note that is does not use any concern of the future of bears as the reaso

DM: I think it is important to keep them listed up until we have had a chance to reform state wildlife management, because state management is such a poor alternative. It's a really poor alternative at a time when the population is becoming increasingly vulnerable.

So the longer term prospects for grizzly bears are going to be in a couple of places. One is, changing state management of wildlife so that it is more representative of the broader public interest, so that it better serves the public trust, to where we do a better job at fostering coexistence between humans and grizzly bears, which means a change in attitude, probably a change in culture, improvements in how we manage foods, how we manage livestock.

All of that's possible, but I would argue we're not going to make any advances on that front unless we have the incentives to do so, and if we delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, a lot of those incentives will go away.

My question to Dave Mattson would be, "So, is this about the future of grizzly bears, or are grizzly bears the best point of leverage you and so many others feel can accomplish the objective of changing the 130 years of state-based wildlife recovery and management?"

I might go to his open house tonight, liver flare up and all, just to see what ideas get floated around.

 

[1_pointer]

I know you are talking about wildlife management here. However, some folks think the difference in the below is the problem with public land management as well:

One big difference the scholars point to that differentiates Conservation from Environmentalism is management authority. Conservation has been built on State management authority, both from our court cases starting in 1842 and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Environmentalism promotes the notion of Federal oversight and has been effective in using the courts to accomplish that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how some of these people think that a continual listing is the only way to conserve a species. All that does is erode support for the ESA and other bedrock conservation laws.

It's clearly time to delist the GYE population. It's time to follow through with the promise of handing management back to the states in areas outside of National Parks & Refuges and it's time to stop the political bullshit. I was very pleased to see Carolyn Byrd of the Greater Yellowstone Coalitions comments regarding delisting - do it and let's work together to ensure a future for the bear.

No sportsman wants to see bears eliminated and no state will mess up the scientific management of the Grizz. Wolves, even as contentious as that management can be, have proven that the states can and do manage just fine when given the authority to live up to their end of the bargain.

Give 'em hell, Randy.

 

[RobG]

I saw that too and it set off the same flags right away. He has a youtube presentation too, which I haven't listened to.

I was looking for another story when I saw the Mattson interview. While it gives more voice to the anti-hunting folks, it does feature you.

This is another good story making the case for delisting: http://mtpr.org/post/usfws-director-why-gye-grizzlies-are-ready-delisting

Quite a bit of stories on there about grizzlies, although most will make your blood boil. http://mtpr.org/term/grizzly-bears.

 

[rmyoung1]

Unfortunately, for these environmentalists, state management is a poor alternative because it allows for consumptive uses (like hunting, trapping), which is a non-starter for them. So, yes, the bear becomes a point of leverage to push their position. State management has been an amazing success for a number of species, but it can't be considered because hunting, trapping, etc cannot be part of the option in their minds. For them, agreeing to state management means admitting that your own personal environmental philosophies are ridiculous. Of course, they won't go there. They'd rather keep the bear listed. Hunting can't be a part of the option for those guys. It's much more about ideology than what's right for the bears.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think you are correct. His beef is not with the bears' future, but with State Management as a whole. I think we should challenge these people to state what they really think will happen. We should force them to engage in forecasting.

In your podcast with the Gritty Bowmen you pointed out that the State Biologists were "dead nuts" when it came to their Wolf Projections - thereby showing that their grasp of the facts was strong. People can come up with post hoc explanations and theories for numerous things, and sound smart doing so. But the most powerful metric of measuring someone's understanding of an issue is their predictive power when it comes to that issue.

So, in the same way that those who decried that delisting wolves would result in extirpation were wrong, and thus showed their weakness in terms of having an actual grasp of the issue. I'd ask this fellow as well:

Based on the allowed mortality within the proposed Grizzly Management Plan, what do you think will happen to the bears in 5, 10, or 15 years?

Make him put it out there and be specific. I have a feeling if his projections were defined and documented, he'd be a lot less certain in his doom and gloom.

 

[shoots-straight]

Bears, wolves, wolverine, Lynx, Sage grouse etc. are just a tool to be used for a movement away from the model that recovered our wildlife.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I know you are talking about wildlife management here. However, some folks think the difference in the below is the problem with public land management as well:

Excellent point.

The difference being that since the origination of the country, land held by the federal government has been a public trust, just as wildlife has been a public trust held by the state.

Two similar models that have evolved to work together in most cases. Changing the land management model at this time would make as much sense as shifting wildlife management to the Fed. Both would be costly and unproductive.

Further complicating that is the National Wildlife Refuge model that so many groups get upset over because the fed manages wildlife within the refuge, often times not following state directives (lion & bear hunting in the CMR, for example, or wolves & bears in Alaska).

The reason that we have wildlife refuges and statutes like the ESA are because the states failed to live up to their end of the bargain, or didn't institute proper conservation measures at the turn of the last century in the case of refuges and in the 50's, 60's & 70's in the case of the ESA.

Laws at the state and national level work in combination, and the promise of the ESA is that once a species is recovered and no longer in need of that specialized level of conservation, the state can resume management under the agreement with the citizens that their management won't cause extirpation of the species again, lest they be relisted. It's participatory democracy through a democratic republic, and together, that's how we got to wildlife abundance enjoyed today.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, I guess I'll go ahead and be the bad guy here...

While I agree with both Randy and Ben as far as the ESA goes, that when populations reach levels to delist, it has to happen or there is no faith in the system anymore.

On the other hand, judging by the way MTFWP has managed some of the other wildlife resources under their purview, I have a real hard time trusting much of anything they do.

Like it or not, I can fully understand why some are more than a little uncomfortable with handing over grizzly management to a State like Montana.

I don't trust the FWP to manage a kids fish pond anymore, I just don't.

I really cant think of one species that they manage that is better now than it was 20 years ago...not one.

I understand that some of that is out of their control, but there are many decisions they've made that have totally franked wildlife in Montana. I mean dumb, blatant disregard for the resource combined with an unwillingness to change management to reflect what's happening around them. I would even argue that their dumb idea to hold spring grizzly hunts in the 90's was the reason they lost management to start with. At a minimum, it sure didn't help anything. Its like they manage in a time warp...and never miss an opportunity to do the wrong thing.

The way that Montana manages what they have control over now...it doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy or make me want to put much faith in them correctly managing grizzlies.

Its a huge pickle that the FWP has put itself in...and they've earned every bit of it.

 

[NKQualtieri]

When and where is his open house, Randy? I'd like to go.

The point that I find confusing within this particular discussion is the issue with state management. What track records lead people to be so skeptical of state management? What animal has been pushed to extirpation by any state? What is the precedent in this mindset?

I read through the delisting proposal put together yesterday and I found it to be incredibly informative, interesting, and thought-provoking on a ton of levels. The fact that IGBST studies don't support white bark pine decline as having any impact on population is crazy to me, as what I've heard from the anti side for the past few yrs seems to encapsulate that idea. I guess people forget that bears really know how to make a living in any landscape. They're not necessarily dependent on any food source, it just changes as opportunity changes.

And if the population does decline, isn't the next step re-listing the GYE bears? I'm not sure what the risk is in delisting when there is a five-year handoff plan in place. I thought this article was a great companion to the one you posted: http://mtpr.org/post/usfws-director-why-gye-grizzlies-are-ready-delisting

Here's the thing that I perceive as being the elephant in the room, I'm speaking in a broad sense, and just trying to work this out internally so take it easy on me, team:

As hunters, the anti-side views any support on our part as being because of the inherent fact that we want to have the opportunity to hunt and kill a grizzly, which becomes an issue of morality for them. They can discount the hunting opinion because it seems that the root of it is the opportunity to kill. But even if these bears were delisted, I'd assume (and I might be wrong) that any level of hunting wouldn't come into play for many years, given the slow reproduction rate of the grizz and the fact that the population has remained stable at carrying capacity for about ten years now.

The bear is not the wolf in this sense. You probably will never have a MT grizzly tag in your pocket in your lifetime.

Where have the lines of communication crossed? Why isn't it celebrated when a species achieves a population goal set out by the ESA, even if it is just within a population? If hunting a grizzly isn't the main goal on our part, then what is? What is the middle ground, if any?

 

[----]

As hunters, the anti-side views any support on our part as being because of the inherent fact that we want to have the opportunity to hunt and kill a grizzly, which becomes an issue of morality for them. They can discount the hunting opinion because it seems that the root of it is the opportunity to kill. But even if these bears were delisted, I'd assume (and I might be wrong) that any level of hunting wouldn't come into play for many years, given the slow reproduction rate of the grizz and the fact that the population has remained stable at carrying capacity for about ten years now.

The bear is not the wolf in this sense. You probably will never have a MT grizzly tag in your pocket in your lifetime.

Hunting is part of the management proposal, right away. There have been many threads here discussing that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

As far as bears go, states had management up until the 70's when the bear was placed on the ESA. That management almost led to extirpation. To recover a slow growing species like bears in 40 years is a remarkable feat, both at the federal and state levels. That's a piece that a lot of these ESA lifers like to forget - the States have been managing alongside the fed under cooperative agreements for a long, long time and are directly responsible for the growth in numbers that lead us to a viable population. These are the people who will be managing bears, just with a little less oversight from the Fed. If things get sideways, then the liklihood of relisting comes in to play.


Montana's bear managers are some of the best in the business. While I share some of Buzz's concerns over game management, I don't have a problem with how MT does Grizzlies. Just like I don't have a problem with how WY does Grizzlies, while I think they're still sitting with their heads firmly up their backsides on wolves.

 

[NKQualtieri]

Hunting is part of the management proposal, right away. There have been many threads here discussing that.

Must have missed it in the proposal, from what I read it seemed that hunting wouldn't play into it immediately. If you have a place to point me to read, I'd appreciate!

I also should've clarified that even if tags WERE made available, it would be unlikely that many people would have one due to limited supply. That's what I meant when I said you wouldn't likely have a tag in your pocket in this lifetime.

 

[BuzzH]

Ben,

You're wrong Montana had grizzly Management until 1993, in the northern population. I applied for spring permits in 1991, and 1992 IIRC...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

You're wrong Montana had grizzly Management until 1993, in the northern population. I applied for spring permits in 1992, and 1993...

That's right.

my bad. Thanks for the correction.

Listed as threatened in 75, with the state managing & limited hunting.

 

[Big Fin]

Hunting is part of the management proposal, right away.

Not necessarily. A lot of steps to climb for the states to get there.

 

[RobG]

Must have missed it in the proposal, from what I read it seemed that hunting wouldn't play into it immediately. If you have a place to point me to read, I'd appreciate!

I also should've clarified that even if tags WERE made available, it would be unlikely that many people would have one due to limited supply.

I posted this the other day and it seems relevant here. I don't know if there is a timeframe on the hunting or if it even a necessary part of delisting.

 

[NKQualtieri]

Not necessarily. A lot of steps to climb for the states to get there.

This was my understanding, thanks Randy.

 

[RobG]

Not necessarily. A lot of steps to climb for the states to get there.

Jiminy crickets you guys type fast. Do you know what is it going to take to get a season on the bears?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

The guy made several statements I found rather hypocritical or actually more self-serving than anything else. First he commented about there being a wide difference in numbers, high and low, of what the bear numbers are. When asked what he thought the numbers were he wouldn't even state a number, but rather sounded like the rest of these greenie weenies when he then intimated it's a lot lower than the estimates. Then he states after the hunting question was posed that in the next few years the numbers would drop by 100 and then a few years later by another 100. What, pray tell, is going to knock those numbers way down like that when there isn't even any hunting of the species and even if hunting was allowed it would probably not even be into the double digits in the three states. To listen to this "bear expert" he's claiming that overall bear numbers haven't increased much at all in the last 10 or 20 years and the reason there are more problem bears is because of lack of food, rather than the real reason that there are so many now that the younger ones are having to find new territory in order to stay alive and not be killed by their own species.