Bears, sex and Woody Allen



By Dan Whipple



UPI Science News




One of the greatest conservation victories of the past century is the recovery from near-extinction of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states -- especially the famous bears in Yellowstone National Park.




So why isn't everyone cheering?




In 1982, I went to a meeting in Yellowstone of bear afficionados in which a bear biologist reported he believed there were only 47 reproducing female grizzlies in Yellowstone National Park. He showed a graph with a single, sharply declining line indicating population trends. It projected extinction for grizzlies in the park by the early 1990s.




Now, only 20 years later, by official estimates there are 500 to 800 specimens of Ursus arctos in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, and some biologists think the number may be as high as 1,000.




According to U.S. Geological Survey biologist Dave Mattson, the success of grizzly bear recovery can be laid squarely at the door of the federal Endangered Species Act. Writing with co-author Troy Merrill in the August issue of the journal Conservation Biology, Mattson said, "Our results show that changes in human attitudes and behavior have been critical to the survival of grizzly bears form 1970 to the present ... This is direct evidence for the dramatic beneficial effect of conservation policies enacted through legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act."




Despite this success, and what University of Alberta biologist Mark Boyce has called the saturation of available habitat by grizzlies, Mattson and Merrill urge that the grizzly bear be kept on the endangered species list.




Because of some threats to its food supply -- especially whitebark pine -- they write, "The apparent robustness of Yellowstone's grizzly bear range is deceptive ... Virtually all the whitebark pine in the system is projected to be lost either to an exotic pathogen or to global climate warming ... Such vulnerability emphasizes the need for concern over loss of this food and argues for the inadvisability of removing any legal protections for this population."




That is one viewpoint.




Dave Moody, trophy game coordinator for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, told United Press International it probably is time to remove the Yellowstone grizzly from the endangered list.




"It has met or exceeded all of the recovery criteria specified in the 1993 recovery plan," Moody said.




This situation reminds me of a scene in Woody Allen's film, "Annie Hall." Allen's character Alvy Singer is answering his therapist, who has asked how often he and the eponymous Annie have sex.




"Hardly ever," he complains. "Three times a week."




Meanwhile, on the other half of the screen, Annie is answering the same question posed by her shrink.




"All the time," she kvetches. "Three times a week."




Regarding grizzlies, one side says there are hardly any in the Yellowstone ecosystem: 500 to 800. The other side claims there are plenty of them: 500 to 800.




Why the conflict? Part of it is political. Removing the bear from the endangered species list would take most of the control of its management out of the hands of scientists and place it with the states surrounding Yellowstone -- Idaho, Montana and especially Wyoming.




Louisa Willcox has been an activist with several conservation groups involved almost exclusively with grizzly bear recovery for the last 20 years. "It is a success in the sense that bears are there, when there was some real question 20 years ago about whether that would be so," she told UPI.




"People like Dave Moody are a large part of the reason why bears are here," Willcox said. "(But) we have different views on the future. It comes down to your faith in the political system. And looking at the history of wildlife conservation in states like Wyoming -- not at the Moody level, but at the political level, at the governor's level -- what is there that suggests we be optimistic about Wyoming's ability to keep the bear healthy?"




Sure enough, this past spring, the commissioners of Fremont County, Wyoming, which is important bear habitat just south of Yellowstone, passed a resolution prohibiting grizzly bears -- and, in passing, wolves -- from living in their county. How it was to be enforced, however, they did not say. Bears do not often read county commission resolutions.




"I think that the bear has been on everybody's radar screen for so long and there are a lot of people who have made careers out of it," Moody commented. "And there's the fact that the bear stands as a symbol for wild country, maintaining back-country values."




Moody said the grizzly has become a poster child for people who have "different regimes and goals and what they want to see long term like dealing other land use issues. The bear should be addressed as a species."




As Mattson's work indicates, the bear also is a poster child for the Endangered Species Act, both its effectiveness in protecting endangered species and in its legal power. The ESA is the 1,600-pound gorilla.




The wildlife managers who have protected the grizzly bear have made many courageous decisions the ESA gave them the clout to enforce. To give but one example, they forced the closing off of dumps to the bears.




Dumps had become prime grizzly habitat, with bears foraging among last night's roast beef and mashed potatoes for today's meal. There were lots of reasons to close the dumps. For instance, dump scavenging encouraged bear-human encounters, which inevitably ended in the bear being shot.




Part of the reasoning might almost be called "moral." Many scientists and activists wanted to save grizzlies only as wild animals, not as semi-domesticated dump scavengers.




Closing the dumps was not popular, however, because it made it harder for tourists to see bears. Also, during the first couple of years after the dumps were closed, bear numbers dropped. Lots of people, some scientists included, argued the continued existence of the grizzly was more important than retaining its "wildness." They wanted the dumps reopened or supplemental feeding instituted for the animals.




Managers resisted this pressure.




Being a conservation poster child cuts both ways, of course. Grizzlies require lots of room to roam. A paper published in 1998 found grizzlies require 50,000 square kilometers to have a 90 percent chance of survival. When the animal is protected by the extremely strict ESA, this can result in tough limitations on economic activity in bear habitat.




This issue is more than theoretical. The Bridger-Teton mountain range around Yellowstone is a major oil and natural gas zone. Conservationists have used the grizzly bear to slow or prevent oil and gas drilling the area, pleading ESA habitat protections.




Attorney Steven Quarles, with the Washington, D.C., law firm of Crowell and Moring, said, "Until recently, environmental laws and regulations have required the regulated and regulators to pay close attention to only the non-living resources, such as air, water and waste."




Until the ESA was enacted, Quarles continued, "and except for migratory species protected by international treaties, federal environmental laws and regulations did not feature and seldom referred to living resources."




The regulated community is "seriously crabby" about the living resource laws, he said.




Living resource laws such as ESA unquestionably have led to a rejuvenation of grizzly bear populations. The application to this healthy, growing -- and dangerous -- animal population will test our commitment to biodiversity.




Copyright © 2002 United Press International