Volume 15, Number 3
Fall 2003

Grizzly News from the Wild Rockies Networker

Volume 10, Number 4--Winter 1998

Scientists and Conservation Leaders Challenge Grizzly Bear Program
Citing a pattern of secrecy, in-house decision-making, misleading information, and failure to use good science, several independent scientists and conservation leaders at a November 30th press conference called for major changes in the federal grizzly bear recovery effort, including a Congressional review. They also challenged habitat management standards under consideration by the government's Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC).

The conference comes on the heels of numerous controversies that have left the federal recovery program open to criticism. These include a series of court decisions which find fault with the agency's recovery methods, a proposal to adopt relaxed road management standards, proposals to begin the de-listing process for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide grizzly bear ecosystems, reintroduction of grizzly bears to central Idaho as "experimental, non-essential" and a refusal to enlarge the official grizzly bear recovery zones. Explosive allegations of political intimidation and confiscation of scientific data are made in the new book "Science Under Siege."

The new scientific report, prepared by Dr. Lee Metzgar (see related story), finds that contrary to earlier reports, a grizzly bear population on the Flathead National Forest is declining, and road management standards prepared by a government technical committee will lead to further declines of grizzly bears.

Keith Hammer, chair of the Swan View Coalition, said the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee is largely reneging on a previous agreement to obliterate roads in favor of gates, which it acknowledges are more costly and less effective. The new standards ignore research findings that female grizzlies prefer unroaded habitat and avoid gated forest roads. "The biologists in charge of grizzly bear recovery have surrendered their science, " said Hammer. "The recovery goal was once 550 bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Now it is around 420 to 440 bears. They've lowered the goal posts before they punt."

John Craighead said, "The scientific difficulties arise in the need to assess the biological ramifications of compromises to politics. This is one of several compelling reasons to encourage non-government biologists to actively participate in early review of research proposals, results, and management prescriptions. Scientists free of the agencies' cultural milieu and political pressures may help bring new perspectives to recovery efforts."

"Dr. Metzgar's investigation sharply emphasizes the necessity for transparent land and wildlife management agendas including full public disclosure and independent scientific review of data and the decisions flowing from it," said Dr. Brian Horejsi, an independent grizzly bear biologist from Calgary, Alberta.

AWR board president Liz Sedler noted the recent legal decision ordering FWS to reconsider endangered status (up from threatened) for the Selkirk Mountains grizzly population. "The fact this population is headed towards endangered status rather than recovery shows the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has allowed too much roadbuilding and logging within grizzly bear habitat," said Sedler.

Longtime grizzly bear researcher Dr. Charles Jonkel said while there have been a few bright spots, "overall, habitat for the bear since 1975 has gone down, down, down." Brian Peck, a representative of the Sierra Club Grizzly Bear Ecosystems Project blasted the proposal to de-list the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. "The unseemly rush to de-list grizzlies in Yellowstone has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics, pride, and ego, " said Peck.

Mike Bader of AWR announced a new lawsuit pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Bader summarized the panelists' call for a broad-scale independent review of the entire federal grizzly recovery program. "The government is managing the grizzly bear as a series of isolated islands of remnant populations, doomed to certain decline and possible extinction. They are weakening legal protections, allowing more roads, more logging, more oil wells and more motorized use in the grizzly's shrinking range," said Bader.

The conference garnered widespread media coverage and gained immediate results: the government hastily called its own news conference in response to ours, at which they flatly denied there are any proposals to begin de-listing. At the IGBC meetings, the technical committee responsible for the new road management proposal postponed final adoption of the plan until at least May 1st and they committed to a process of independent peer review and public involvement.

The panelists called for:

• The IGBC to postpone adoption of the Access Management Standards until independent peer review and public input are completed
• A broad-scale independent review of the federal grizzly bear recovery effort by the Congressional Research Service
• Postponement of consideration of de-listing and weaker access management standards pending completion of the independent review

Volume 10, Number 3--Autumn 1998

Bitterroot Grizzly News
Alliance for the Wild Rockies has appealed the rejection of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Interior headquarters in Washington, D.C. Earlier this year, AWR had filed a FOIA with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) seeking access to the full public comment record on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for grizzly recovery in the Salmon-Selway ecosystem. AWR is seeking access to the names of the commenters, which FWS has refused to make available. The Missoulian newspaper, in an editorial earlier this year, criticized the policy, stating, "Identification is a component of credibility...Conflicts of interest and special interests become impossible to discern without identification." The editorial concluded by stating, "The fact is, so long as the public's input is presented as anonymous comments, you have no way of knowing whether it's genuine or contrived. The government can't suppress part of the public record and expect people to trust the rest of it."

Our appeal was denied by FWS regional director Ralph Moregenweck in Denver, Colorado. A recent letter from Interior Department appeals coordinator William Wolf stated the appeal is still under review.

In related news, the Interior Appropriations spending bill passed by Congress contains language prohibiting any reintroduction of grizzlies into Idaho during fiscal year 1999. Funds were allocated to allow further environmental studies of the proposed reintroductions. President Clinton has yet to sign or veto the bill.

Back to the Grizzly Spotlight...