May 10, 2016
Public Comments Processing
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
Subject: Proposed Rule to Remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Dear U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
I am writing to you on behalf of over 1,100 members of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition).Our membership is composed entirely of retired, former, or current salaried employees of the National Park Service (NPS) and includes a number of former employees of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. As a group, we collectively represent more than 30,000 years of national park management experience. The Coalition studies, educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation of America’s National Park System. We are writing to express our concerns about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposal to remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, as described in the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 48, Friday, March 11, 2016 (hereafter referred to as “FR”).
Our primary concerns about the proposed delisting relate to the potentially significant increases in human- caused mortalities of Yellowstone grizzly bears once delisting occurs. Such an increase is acknowledged by FWS in many places in the FR Notice. A representative sampling of these statements includes the following:
- Human activities are the primary factor impacting habitat security and the ability of bears to find and access foods, mates, cover, and den sites. (FR p. 13178)
- The primary factor affecting grizzly bears at both the individual and population level is excessive human-caused mortality.(FR p. 13178)
- Human-caused mortality risk also can impact which habitat might be considered suitable. Some human-caused mortality is unavoidable in a dynamic system where hundreds of bears inhabit large areas of diverse habitat with several million human visitors and residents. The negative impacts of humans on grizzly bear survival and habitat use are well documented (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458–459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 83–103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–1864; McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 377–378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41–44; Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9–11; Mace et al.1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914–916; White et al. 1999, p. 150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166–168; Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 2004, p. 976; Schwartz et al.2010, p. 661). (FR p. 13185)
- As human population densities increase, the frequency of encounters between humans and grizzly bears also increases, resulting in more human-caused grizzly bear mortalities due to a perceived or real threat to human life or property (Mattsonet al.1996, pp. 1014-1015). (FR p. 13185)
- Mortality reduction is a key part of any successful management effort for grizzly bears; however, some mortality, including most human-caused mortality, is unavoidable in a dynamic system where hundreds of bears inhabit large areas of diverse habitat with several million human visitors and residents.(FR p. 13187)
- Grizzly bears are a “conservation-reliant” species because of their low resiliency to excessive human-caused mortality and the manageable nature of this threat (Scottet al. 2005, p. 384). (FR p. 13188)
- Excessive human-caused mortality was the primary factor contributing to grizzly bear decline during the 19th and 20th centuries (Leopold 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990, p. 1; Servheen 1999, pp. 50–52; Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; Schwartz et al.2003b, 571), eventually leading to their listing as a threatened species in 1975 (FR p. 13205)
- From 1980 to 2002, 66 percent (191) of the 290 known grizzly bear mortalities were human-caused (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). The main causes of human-caused mortality were human site conflicts, self-defense, vandal killings, and hunting-related, all of which can be partially mitigated for through management actions (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). (FR p. 13205)
- From 2002–2014, 76 percent of known or probable grizzly bear mortalities in the GYE DMA (311/410) were human-caused (Haroldson2014, in litt.; Haroldson et al. 2015, p.26). (FR p. 13205)
If delisting is made final, the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho will classify grizzly bears as game animals throughout the DPS boundaries. This status provides legal protection(emphasis added) to grizzly bears by prohibiting unlimited or unwarranted killing of grizzly bears by the public.
Frankly, the logic of the above FWS statement is bizarre. Removing Yellowstone grizzly bears from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife will very obviously diminish legal protection for the species. The consequences of delisting are very predictable – Yellowstone grizzly bears will be classified as a game species by the three States; and commercial and recreational hunting of grizzly bears will ensue, adding significantly to the existing levels of human-caused mortality.
As a national parks advocacy group, the Coalition is most concerned about the adverse impacts that increased human-caused mortality, due to commercial and recreational hunting, will have on the grizzly population within and in the immediate vicinity of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and the spectacular wildlife viewing opportunities therein. The fundamental purpose of units of the National Park System (parks) is described in the NPS Organic Act of 1916, which states:
[The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified … by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life(emphasis added) therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (54 U.S.C. § 100302(a)(3))
Public enjoyment of Yellowstone’s and Grand Teton’s iconic “charismatic megafauna” is a fully understood reason for the strong public support of the GYE grizzly bear recovery program, which by most accounts has been largely successful. Even FWS recognizes the importance of such public support, as described at FR p. 13217:
Public support is paramount to any successful large carnivore conservation program (Servheen 1998, p. 67)…We have seen a change in public perceptions and attitudes toward the grizzly bear in the last several decades. The same government that once financially supported active extermination of the bear now uses its resources to protect the great symbol of American wildness(emphasis added). This change in government policy and practice is a product of changing public attitudes about the grizzly bear. Although attitudes about grizzly bears vary geographically and demographically, there has been a revival of positive attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its conservation (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983–986).
We could not have said it better ourselves – Yellowstone grizzly bears have truly become an iconic national symbol of American wildness! As evidence of this, consider the public outrage at the recent illegal killing of famed Yellowstone grizzly bear Scarface. [1] If FWS proceeds with the proposed delisting, imagine FWS-sanctioned trophy hunting in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho killing up to 35 [2] additional Yellowstone grizzly bears every year! Among those 35 or so bears, how many “visitor favorite” Yellowstone grizzlies will be destroyed for no more than the pleasure of a few? Only next time the killing will be perfectly legal, “FWS approved” and State supported. That is no way to successfully maintain public support for a wildlife recovery program!
If implemented by the States, some of which already appear eager to “kill grizzly bears,” long established institutional controls that have guided admirable recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population will be substantially reduced if not totally abandoned. Furthermore, FWS has provided no persuasive information to suggest that the existing sources of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities will somehow decrease once hunting is allowed. The math is obvious – bears killed by hunting, or “discretionary mortality” as FWS calls it, will inherently add to the ongoing levels of human caused mortality. For these reasons, the Coalition vehemently opposes the proposed delisting.
If delisting occurs, grizzly bear hunting will certainly be authorized by State game management authorities in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. The State game management programs are clearly motivated by different goals and values than the respective conservation mandates that drive FWS and NPS wildlife management decisions. To the States, big game and trophy species are highly profitable commodities with significant direct and indirect economic value through the sales of hunting permits and promotion of hunting and commercial guide services. It is telling that grizzly bears, despite their Federally protected status since 1975, have already been classified by Wyoming as a “trophy game animal” [3] Big game hunters, particularly out-of-state big game hunters who will be charged big bucks for expensive permits, will expect a reasonable chance of a successful hunt. For example, in Montana’s proposed grizzly bear hunting regulations, an out-of-state grizzly license would cost $1,000! [4] While State game management programs are typically well managed and appropriate for thriving populations of big game species, some aspects of the State hunting programs that are designed to “facilitate” successful trophy hunting are clearly inappropriate for a newly recovered species, if that is the eventual FWS determination for the Yellowstone grizzly bear.
FR pp. 13202-13203 indicates that if State agencies decide to establish hunting seasons, the following “regulatory mechanisms” must be in place by law and regulation for delisting to occur. The States would be required to enact specific regulations that will serve as adequate regulatory mechanisms over human caused mortality, including mortality from sport hunting. These regulations must include:
- Suspending all discretionary mortality inside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA), except if required for human safety, if the model averaged Chao2 population estimate falls below 600;
- Suspending grizzly bear hunting inside the DMA if total mortality limits for any sex/age class (as per tables 1, 2, and 3) are met at any time during the year;
- Female grizzly bear with young will not be available for recreational harvest; and
- In a given year, discretionary mortality will only be allowed if nondiscretionary mortality (Factor C) does not meet or exceed total mortality limits for that year.
- Any mortality that exceeds total mortality limits in any year will be subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for the following year to assure that long-term mortality levels remain within prescribed limits inside the DMA.
Furthermore, one can reasonably expect that a State’s grizzly bear hunting regulation may be similar in many ways to its black bear hunting regulations. Yet FWS fails to address the significant variability in the kinds of techniques allowed for (black) bear hunting and the ecological basis for the timing and length of bear hunting seasons. For example, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) regulations [5] allow baiting of black bears and varying dates for Fall and Spring hunting seasons. Idaho regulations [6] also allow baiting of black bears and varying Fall and Spring hunting dates. In addition, Idaho allows hound hunting of black bears. Dogs may be used to pursue black bears in either an open take season where use of dogs is allowed, or during a dog training season open for black bears; and pursuit of black bear by dogs is allowed regardless of whether a black bear already has been harvested! These respective State black bear regulations suggest the very real possibility that baiting and/or use of hounds to hunt grizzly bears could, or may even be likely, to occur in Wyoming and Idaho unless the FWS explicitly precludes those activities in its regulatory mechanisms.
As evidence of the likely similarity of grizzly bear hunting regulations to a State’s black bear regulations, one need only consider Montana’s recently proposed grizzly bear hunting regulations3. Similar to Montana’s black bear hunting regulations, it would be illegal to bait grizzly bears or to hunt them with dogs; and no scents could be used to attract grizzly bears. Montana would also allow both Fall and Spring hunts with varying dates. However, in Montana the hunting season dates would be designed to protect female grizzlies, according to John Vore, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks game management bureau chief. [7] The proposed grizzly bear Spring hunting season in Montana would run March 15-April 20 and the Fall season would run November 10 through December 15 because, as explained by Vore, “females, especially those with young, emerge from dens later in the spring and go in earlier in the fall than do males.” Why wouldn’t FWS require similar protective measures of Wyoming and Idaho?
Of particular concern to the Coalition is the probability that Wyoming will allow grizzly bear hunting and potentially grizzly bear baiting on private inholdings within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park (GTNP). On March 15, 2016, WGFD issued a Draft Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan [8]that would allow hunting of grizzly bears. Page 2 states:
After the GYA DPS of grizzly bear is delisted, the Department will assume primary authority for grizzly bear management throughout Wyoming, except on National Park Service lands within YNP and GTNP(emphasis added), and on Tribal lands of the Wind River Reservation.
The statement underlined above appears to have been carefully worded by WGFD so that grizzly bear hunting is only excluded on “NPS-owned lands” but not on private inholdings within the national parks. This is a special concern at GTNP where NPS laws, regulations, and policies generally protect the wildlife. However, some 2300 acres within the Park are owned privately or by the State of Wyoming, known as “inholdings.” For 65 years (since 1950), the NPS and the Department of the Interior applied federal law and park regulations to protect wildlife on those inholdings, and for almost all of that time, the State of Wyoming accepted that law as controlling. However, in November 2014 NPS issued a decision that its wildlife protection regulations do not apply on inholdings within GTNP and in effect turned over to WGFD all regulatory authority over killing wildlife on such inholdings. NPS further agreed with WGFD’s actions making wildlife that wander onto inholdings subject to hunting or other means of killing, which is contradictory with NPS’s statutory mandate of protecting the Park’s wildlife inside park boundaries. Consequently, there is a current litigation [9] challenging the NPS decision.
We understand that such NPS policy decisions are not necessarily of concern to FWS; however, in the context of the proposed delisting of Yellowstone grizzly bears, the NPS decision to allow Wyoming to manage hunting activities on GRTE inholdings poses even greater threats to grizzly bears, which are not assessed in the proposed rule, as well as adverse impacts to park values. In essence, the NPS decision creates the prospect that grizzly bear hunting and possibly grizzly bear baiting will occur on relatively small tracts of non-NPS land inside GRTE, creating de facto big-game trophy hunting enclaves surrounded by park lands. Such land ownership patterns are like the proverbial Swiss cheese, except in this case the “holes” are “loaded for bear” and equate to danger zones whose boundaries are largely imperceptible to both wildlife and park visitors. If Wyoming sanctions grizzly bear hunting on the inholdings within GRTE, at least some of the grizzly bear home ranges within the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and DMA will inevitably overlap with the danger zones.
Another concern is that the proposed rule’s analysis of potential impacts of climate change on Yellowstone grizzly bear habitat (FR pp. 13216-13217) is cursory at best and fails to adequately consider the synergistic effects between predicted climate warming and other environmental factors. FWS concludes:
The effects related to climate change may result in a number of changes to grizzly bear habitat, including a reduction in snowpack levels, shifts in denning times, shifts in the abundance and distribution of some natural food sources, and changes in fire regimes. Most grizzly bear biologists in the United States and Canada do not expect habitat changes predicted under climate change scenarios to directly threaten grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). These changes may even make habitat more suitable and food sources more abundant. However, these ecological changes may also affect the timing and frequency of grizzly bear human interactions and conflicts (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4).
However, page 4 of the 23-page study cited above contains only a 2-paragraph discussion of potential impacts to the Yellowstone grizzly population. [10] And much of the report is focused on grizzly bear management in Alberta and British Columbia, which is not particularly relevant to the isolated GYE grizzly bear population. In justifying the Yellowstone population as a “Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment” FWS states: “The GYE grizzly bear population is the southernmost population remaining in the conterminous United States and has been physically separated from other areas(emphasis added) where grizzly bears occur for at least 100 years (Merriam 1922, pp. 1–2; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). (FR p. 13191)
That same 2-paragraph discussion of Yellowstone grizzlies in Servheen and Cross 2010 acknowledges that due to climate change temperatures are likely to be higher and “temperature-driven changes in evaporation and the ratio of rain to snow are likely to lead to drier conditions overall, especially during the summer.” While the report briefly discusses potential impacts of the anticipated drier conditions on Yellowstone grizzly food sources, it fails to mention or analyze the likelihood that drier conditions will lead to chronic increases in extreme wildland fire events in the greater Yellowstone area and related changes in Yellowstone grizzly bear habitat. Those of us who have worked at Yellowstone or Grand Teton National Parks understand the synergistic effects that chronically drier conditions (or “drought”) could have on fire behavior, as well as the impacts that a significant or sustained increase in major fires could have on grizzly habitat, denning chronology, and human/grizzly bear interactions and conflicts. Yet, the FWS analysis fails to consider or even mention the likely significant impacts of increased wildland fires on Yellowstone grizzly bears as a result of climate change.
The various shortcomings described above are reminiscent of past efforts by FWS to delist the Yellowstone grizzly. As described in “Previous Federal Actions” (FR pp. 13175-13176), those efforts were fraught with controversy and were overturned, at least in part, by Federal courts due to inadequacies in the FWS analysis. In addition, the “previous actions” discussion fails to mention a recent court decision that overturned a FWS decision to allow an increase in the number of grizzly bears that could be “incidently” killed in association with the annual elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park (GRTE). On March 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that FWS and NPS had violated the Endangered Species Act in September 2013 when they decided to allow the lethal “incidental taking” of up to four additional grizzly bears in connection with a fall elk hunt in GRTE. [11]
Clearly, the proposed delisting of Yellowstone grizzly bears will again be highly controversial and likely face its own legal challenges along the lines of the previous cases that FWS has already lost. This makes it all the more disappointing that, along with the inadequate analysis of the proposed delisting, FWS has not also proposed stronger “regulatory mechanisms” or institutional controls to ensure effective coordination across the GYE and govern potential State-run grizzly bear hunting programs. It is evident that FWS has not adequately thought through the potential problems and obvious concerns, such as the likelihood of the States developing distinctly different grizzly bear hunting regulations that lack consistency and coordination, other than the FWS-proposed “discretionary morality” parameters. There are obvious, significant gaps in the proposed regulatory mechanisms that will create not only public perception and legal problems, but also interagency coordination and implementation problems that could significantly reduce the effectiveness of FWS’s proposed post-recovery management program.
As stated earlier, the Coalition vehemently opposes the proposed delisting. However, if FWS remains determined to proceed with removing Yellowstone grizzly bears from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, we urge FWS to take a much more cautious approach to the delisting that errs on the side of strongly coordinated species conservation rather than relatively autonomous State control. Toward that end, we recommend that the following be added to the currently described regulatory mechanisms (FR pp. 13202-13203) that would be required of the States before delisting could occur:
- All grizzly bear hunting is prohibited within the Greater Yellowstone Primary Conservation Area (PCA)/Yellowstone Recovery Zone
- Hunting grizzly bears is prohibited on private inholdings within Grand Teton National Park
- All trapping, baiting, hound hunting or the use of scents for hunting grizzly bears is prohibited within the Yellowstone DMA
- Where hunting is allowed, shooting a grizzly bear that is traveling with another bear or bears is prohibited to avoid killing a female with cubs or a bear two years old or younger
- The timing of the respective State grizzly hunting season dates will be coordinated annually through the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee (YGCC) and based on recommendations of the IGBST. The hunting season dates will be designed to minimize risk to females and females with cubs. (Comment: If the respective State hunting season dates lack GYE-wide coordination, as the process is currently proposed, it could cause unpredictable and disparate impacts across the DMA. Therefore, GYE-wide coordination is essential.)
In closing, we urge FWS and the Department of the Interior to fully reconsider the proposal to remove Yellowstone grizzly bears from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. While the increase in the Yellowstone grizzly bear population achieved over the past 35 years has truly been a wildlife conservation success story, FWS “declaring victory” prematurely by removing Yellowstone grizzlies from protected species status now, without adequate analysis of foreseeable impacts and without providing adequate institutional controls to ensure the population remains recovered, would be a grievous mistake of epic proportions. The iconic Yellowstone grizzly bear and the American public who have long supported its conservation deserve better than that.
Sincerely,
Maureen Finnerty, Chair
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
cc: Jon Jarvis, Director, National Park Service
Sue Masica, Intermountain Regional Director, National Park Service
David Vela, Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park, National Park Service
Dan Wenk, Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/05/02/famed-yellowstone-grizzly-scarface-shot-and-killed-spurring-investigation/
[2]Thirty-five (35) is the FWS estimate of the number of grizzly bears, 7 independent females and 28 independent males, potentially available for “discretionary mortality” based on 2015 data. (FR p. 13203 )
[3]Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 23-1-101 (a) (xii) (A)
[4]http://1qb1ow3qfudf14kwjzalxq618a5.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Grizzly-Bear-draft-5-5-16.pdf
[5]https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regulations/Regulation-PDFs/REGULATIONS_CH3
[6]https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/bgBear.pdf
[7]http://flatheadbeacon.com/2016/05/06/debate-rages-montana-outlines-draft-details-grizzly-hunting-season/
[8]https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/Wildlife/Hot%20Topics/FIN-DRAFT-GB-Mgmt-Plan-3-15-16.pdf
[9]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ViaezzbfznU3ViRy1tdjBxeUU/view?pref=2&pli=1
[10]http://igbconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/101222_Climate-change-grizzlies-and-wolveries-transboundary-workshop-rpt.pdf
[11]https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0479-49
Source: The Coalition to Protect America's National Parks
