Scientists Challenge Federal Grizzly Bear Program
11/30/98
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Scientists Challenge Federal Grizzly Bear Program
Source: Alliance for the Wild Rockies
Status: Distribute freely with proper credit to source
Date: 11/30/98
Contacts: Mike Bader (406)721-5420; Keith Hammer (406)755-1379; Louisa
Willcox (406)582-8365
MISSOULA-- Citing a pattern of secrecy, in-house decision-making,
misleading information, and failure to use good science, several
independent scientists and conservation leaders today 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).
At a press conference held the day before the federal bear committee
meets, the scientists and conservationists urged the IGBC to postpone
adoption of the proposed habitat standards until there has been
independent peer review and public involvement in the process.
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 populations, reintroduction of grizzly
bears to central Idaho as "experimental" 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 report, prepared by Dr. Lee Metzgar, a population ecologist and
retired professor and former director of the Wildlife Biology Program at
the University of Montana, 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. "I have concluded that if
the standards proposed by the technical committee are the most protection
for grizzly bears that land managers are willing to provide, then we will
no longer be able to manage national forest areas in the Northern Rockies
as suitable grizzly bear habitat," said Dr. Metzgar. "The recommended
standards for open and total road densities are based on inappropriate
uses of data. We should expect that implementation of these permissive
standards will expose bears to excessive mortality and displacement.
Existing data provide no reasons to believe that grizzlies can survive in
such landscapes," said Dr. Metzgar.
Keith Hammer, chair of the Swan View Coalition, said that the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee is attempting to adopt new forest road management
standards that would largely renege on a previous agreement to obliterate
roads in favor of a return to gates, which it acknowledges are more costly
and less effective. The new standards would ignore research findings that
female grizzly bears prefer unroaded habitat and avoid gated forest roads.
"In an attempt to rationalize the IGBC's retreat from road obliteration,
its team of scientists openly admits that it compromised the 'objective
application of research findings' in order to appease opponents of road
obliteration, " said Mr. Hammer.
John Craighead of the Craighead Wildlife-Wildlands Institute, one of the
world's leading authorities on grizzly bears said, "The scientific
difficulties arise in the need to assess the biological ramifications of
compromises to politics. These compromises become extremely critical given
that grizzly bear recovery has been focused towards meeting the bear's
minimum requirements. 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 has resulted in a paper reversal of the
fortunes of the Swan-Flathead grizzly bear population--from increasing to
declining. This 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. "These democratic processes are not available in Canada;
the consequence is that management of international bear populations such
as the North Cascades, Selkirk, Cabinet-Yaak and Northern Continental
Divide populations is based on suspect data, questionable science, and no
public oversight. This is more bad news for U.S. recovery efforts," added
Dr. Horejsi.
Liz Sedler, a resident of Sandpoint, Idaho and a plaintiff in the lawsuit
seeking endangered status for the Selkirk Mountains grizzly bear
population, pointed to the recent legal decision ordering FWS to
reconsider endangered status (up from threatened). "The fact that this
population is headed towards endangered status rather than towards
recovery shows that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has allowed too much
roadbuilding and logging within grizzly bear habitat," said Ms. Sedler.
"The Fish & Wildlife Service has relied on bad information and manipulated
statistics to mask the fact that their management plan has been failing."
The ruling from Judge Friedman stated in part "...a population of 26 to 36
grizzly bears seems endangered almost by definition."
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 Mr. Peck. He pointed to the fact that
after 23 years since the grizzly was listed and millions of dollars
earmarked for recovery, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service still lacks
credible data on bear numbers, while tens of thousands of acres of
critical habitat have been lost to increasing development such as logging
and roadbuilding.
Mike Bader, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies,
announced his organization has filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act to force the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to provide the
identities of commentors on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for
thr reintroduction of grizzly bears to the Selway-Bitterroot region in
Idaho. "We call on the Fish & Wildlife Service to quit playing games and
give us the names," said Mr. Bader. He quoted from the suit which states
in part, "...close review of the unredacted Bitterroot comments and the
subsequent publication of plaintiffs' assessment would contribute to the
public's ability to assess the propriety of agency action in light of the
comments, and, in particular, whether agency actions and decisions
regarding grizzly bear reintroduction are reasonable, or rather, are
arbitrary and capricious."
Bader summarized the panelists' call for a broad-scale independent review
of the entire federal grizzly recovery program. "We have lost confidence
in the direction and scope of the recovery effort in the lower 48 states.
The federal grizzly recovery effort is off course, and sailing towards the
wrong destination," said Mr. Bader.
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.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies
P.O. Box 8731
Missoula, MT 59807
406-721-5420
406-721-9917 (fax)
http://www.wildrockies.org/awr
mailto:awr@wildrockies.org