Grizzly Bear to Be Removed from Endangered Species List
By Devon Pendleton
November 15, 2005 The United States Department of the Interior announced plans Tuesday to remove the grizzly bear from the Endangered Species List after 30 years of federal protection. The proposal to de-list grizzlies opens up a 90-day comment period during which the public is invited to submit comments supporting or denouncing the move. While the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and other governmental organizations are lauding the move as proof of a mission accomplished, many conservationists are wary that the initiative is premature and lacks sufficient provisions to sustain grizzly populations.
While grizzlies have generally prospered in Alaska and northwest Canada, unchecked hunting and human encroachment on their habitat in the lower 48 drove them to the brink of extinction by the early 1970s. Since their listing under the Endangered Species Act, however, their numbers have surged to an estimated 1,200, up from approximately 200 in 1975, according to NWF. Representatives at NWF are heralding these statistics as an example of the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Population resurgence has been most successful in and around Yellowstone Park, mainly due to the close surveillance and protection they have enjoyed under federal law.
In 1993, the National Park Service put forth a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan with specific goals aimed at minimizing mortality and encouraging reproduction and population distribution. All these numeric goals have been achieved since 1998, leaving many officials confident that the plan has accomplished exactly what it set out to do.
"The facts of Yellowstone grizzly recovery are conclusive," Tom France, director of NWF’s Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center, told Outside Online. "It is now time to give back regulatory authority of wildlife to the states, in this case Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana."
Under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan, six million acres of land will be designated as Primary Conservation Area under which the Forest Service and the National Park Service will be required to ensure that grizzly bear needs remain a priority. An additional six million acres outside the primary area will be designated as a "Recovery Zone" to allow for additional grizzly occupancy.
Many conservationists are not so optimistic about the grizzlies' chance for survival without federal protection. Louise Wilcox, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Wild Bears Project, expressed her concern that the government’s actions are premature, particularly for the grizzly, the slowest-reproducing mammal in North America.
"The grizzly habitat we're talking about is one highly vulnerable to development— particularly in the oil, drilling, and gas industries,” said Wilcox. “The de-listing of grizzlies allows for development of land which was previously protected as their habitat."
According to Wilcox, this kind of encroachment will not only increase human-grizzly interaction (likely resulting in more human fatalities) but will also further fragment the uneven grizzly population, a consequence which many ecologists see as being the potential death knell for the animal. Wilcox is also concerned that the loss of funding from the Endangered Species Act, which previously went to educating and safeguarding communities about bears, will worsen bear-human relations and aggravate problems between bears and farmers over livestock.
Conservationists are also worried about the possibility of state-sponsored grizzly hunting, a concern that NWF’s Tom France sees as overblown.
"All governors have done is acknowledge that hunting seasons may be a possibility,” he said. “But even if it did happen, the hunting must stay within very strict limits to maintain the 1998 population figures. The states understand that they have been handed a very significant responsibility and it is unthinkable that they wouldn't do everything within their means to uphold this responsibility."
France also points out that there is a provision specifically listing conditions under which the grizzly would be re-listed if states didn't uphold their obligations, a provision which Wilcox claims is toothless.
"The limits are simply not rigorous enough," said Wilcox.
If population numbers were to drop, a management committee would be called in for a review. But this committee, Wilcox contends, would only have advisory powers and no decision-making capability.
"All you have to do is look at the current administration's track record to know where this is headed. So far, they have not re-listed one species voluntarily. That speaks for itself."
