Remove Bears From Endangered Species List

By Ray Grass Deseret Morning News

You’d think that something that sounds as simple as removing the grizzly bear in Yellowstone from the Endangered Species Act would sail through channels like a sailboat in a high wind after studies show the bear is doing well.

Especially when chapters of the Wildlife Society have given their full support of the plan. You couldn’t get a stronger endorsement.

When the grizzly was placed on the list in 1975, estimates were that only 200 to 300 grizzlies roamed the island of Yellowstone National Park.

Since the mid-1990s, the park’s bear population has grown from 4 to 7 percent a year. Estimates now place the numbers closer to 600 bears, which is very close to the sustainable number of bears Yellowstone can support.

Of course, numbers are not what they were back in the early 19th century and never will be. Estimates put the grizzly population back then at between 50,000 and 100,000. Too many cities and country homes now dot what was once grizzly range.

Grizzlies now occupy 48 percent more habitat than they did in 1975 and their range has expanded far more than thought possible just a few years ago.

The Wildlife Society reported that it endorses delisting because it has found guidelines for population abundance, distribution and mortality targets called for in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan have been met.

In announcing the delisting plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said this proves the Endangered Species Act works.

But wait, nothing’s that simple.

Now, a group of scientists and researchers, some 250 strong, have signed a letter, released last week, denouncing the delisting plan. Among those signing the letter was animal researcher Jane Goodall.

The letter claims a population of 500 to 600 bears is not enough, but numbers more like 2,000 to 3,000 “are needed for genetic diversity and to withstand regional variations such as food sources.”

If the target is, indeed, 3,000 bears, then Utah should begin looking into a reintroduction program, because the range would most certainly extend to the northern mountains.

Naturally, all of the USFW numbers are being questioned.

Reasons for not delisting include the fact that the greater Yellowstone area is still subject to oil and gas exploration, road building, civilization encroachment and human intrusion, all of which take habitat from bears.

A population of 3,000 grizzlies growing out of Yellowstone and then moving to new regions would only compound by many times all of those problems and add many more. Already, with a mere 600 bears, scientists are seeing the bears roaming 60 miles outside what was believed to be their outer limits. Five times the number of bears could mean five times the expanded range or 300 miles.

While some recovering species, such as bald eagles, can live in close proximity to humans, grizzlies can’t.

Without question the greatest threat to the 500-pound bears is a 200-pound human, give or take a pound or two. And a real threat to a human is to walk blindly into the path of a grizzly.

Bear and man simply cannot live in close proximity to each other. Eviction papers will have to be served on one.

And humans — hunters and nonhunters, animal activists and the passive majority — are not about to give up home sites and shopping malls to plant Yellowstone cutthroat and a whitepark pine nut to feed the bears.

All of which makes delisting a reasonable alternative.