Early one morning this spring 63 year old Nic Patrick up in Cody Wyoming just east of Yellowstone was irrigating his fields. His dog started barking at a mother griz with cubs and she returned the favor by ripping off Nic's face and biting the heck out of him. Nic went back to the house and had the good sense to put a bag over his head before going in and asking his wife to drive him to the hospital. It's more than half a year later and the docs down in Denver here are still working reattaching Nick's face.
A rough and tumble with a grizzly Bullock Webster
It has been six years now since the world's most competent and knowledgeable bear scientists last recommended delisting the grizzly in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The bears had exceeded the 500 bear population goal by 20% and under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) it was time to delist them. Since then four people have been killed, two were typical maulings, the other two were predation. Predation means the bear was hungry and ate people.
The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) is made up of representatives of every affected states and federal agency in the US and also reps from Canada. (USGS, USFS, USFWS, BLM, all the state divisions of Wildlife etc). Citing universal good news of all measures of health of the species the committee called the good news unanimous, their recommendations are conditional on seeing what happens over the winter with mortality from hibernation.
Many scientists from these agencies have been studying this species their entire professional careers. Despite all the collective know how, of all the senior scientists, their knowledge and their studies will have little effect on when and how the grizzly bear will be delisted. As with wolves, delisting happens in court, it is decided by lawyers with no more scientific knowledge than you or I, and perhaps much less.
There's an old courtroom joke that goes along the lines of... If you have the facts on your side bang on the facts, if you only have the law on your side bang on the law, if you have neither the law nor the facts bang on the table.
All the scientists in the world are no help when someone's banging on the table.
Last night ( I started writing this post in Nov 2013) someone involved with this process representing one of the states said that he expects another 3 rounds in court following roughly the same scenario as with wolves. Similar to wolves, written right into the management plan years ago, is that hunting will be the tool for management of grizzly bears, just like every other species of large mammal. It's expected to take until around 2016 to work it's way through the courts 3 times. No one is disputing the facts, and no one is disputing the law, there's just a bunch of banging on the table yet to be done.
Why the delaying tactics? It's all about cows not bears..Cash cows. The next two or three years represent probably the largest potential donation period for the grizzly bear. The big advocacy groups live or die on donations, donations are their lifeline to their continuing existence. Defenders of Wildlife needs donations like a bear headed for hibernation needs calories. Without donations people start updating resumes and renewing old contacts. That office in NW DC is pricey.
What's the flip side of the coin? Why are the feds and the state agencies so keen on delisting? Expensive recovered charismatic species are bleeding them dry. Every allocation of resources involves choices, average cost per endangered species is around $50K, you spend a couple million on one species that is already recovered and you are robbing funding from other species, that really are endangered. Then again no one donates money for salamanders.
The states for their part want license dollars. Grizzlies can be a net gain for their budgets rather than a drag. Every time a griz chews on some hiker it costs a lot of money, if what are really over populations in some areas were whittled down to manageable levels there'd be less conflict plus income from tags. How much income? Maybe enough to make the bear a net plus. They'd be in competition with Alaska and Canada, where costs for guided hunts can run into five digits. The total number of tags would be very low but they could sell each one for quite a bit of money.
How would a legal grizzly hunt affect the health of the species? Probably not at all. They'd use a quota and unit system similar to what they have for many species in many states. Bears reproduce very slowly unlike wolves. While estimating populations is difficult what's not difficult is keeping a handle on population growth. Unlike wolves it's relatively easy to keep bear populations stable.
Some people don't want grizzlies hunted for any reason anywhere, even if that is the official plan that was studied for years and agreed to by all parties. Just like with wolves a deal is not a deal, only a temporary agreement for a temporary tactical goal.
The photo above is not Nic of the mauling I described in the opening. This is some Canadian fellow and the photo has been on my desktop for a long time so I thought I'd use it. This guy and his buddy were out backpack hunting for elk and sleeping in their tent when this griz tore into them. I forget what happened to Mr Bear, the other hunter lived also as I remember. Those Northern Rocky Mountain hunters sure have my respect. I've heard them discussing what's the best handgun for the tent. Long gun is probably unwieldy when tangled in one's sleeping bag and shredded tent and getting mauled at the same time. They took a photo of their tent and then walked out to the road and the hospital.
What do I think? Actually I'd rather bears were relocated, to California, where there is plenty of habitat and the bear is on the state flag. Donation driven orgs could raise money for each bear. They could put them first of all up and down the coast. Bears love to eat fish right? They're omnivores too. Grass, apple orchards, whatever is edible and handy. Coexist.