Save Our Grizzly Bears

In Alberta the government continues to allow the sport hunting of these endangered animals, for no good reason except it brings in big bucks for some outfitter pals of King Ralph. Of course humans are responsible for their decline, we are their only natural enemies. And as the government allows for recreational expansion into the wilderness, their territory is threatened. And they will come in contact with humans who insist on colonizing the wilderness for their 'enjoyment'.


Humans leading cause of death for grizzlies, report finds
Last Updated Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:31:41 EDT
CBC News

The main cause of death for grizzlies living in the Rockies is their interaction with humans, an 11-year study into the bears' population trends has found.

The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project tracked bears living in the Banff and Kananaskis areas for more than a decade. Only one-quarter of female grizzlies and just over 10 per cent of male grizzlies die of natural causes, the study's authors found.

Human interaction, either directly or indirectly, is the main cause of death, Stephen Herrero, a professor of environmental design with the University of Calgary, said. Alberta has closed trails this summer to protect people from grizzly bear attacks.

Their habitat is being eroded, the bears are getting hit by cars, they're hunted – both legally and illegally – and when the animals become a serious enough problem in an area they're either shot or moved to another location.

As well, researchers found the annual birth-rate for bears in Banff and Kananaskis is the lowest in North America. Grizzlies are being driven from their most productive habitats and are, literally, eating garbage.

Poor nutrition is a contributing factor to the low birth rate, the report's authors said. When bears live so close to people, it's easier for them to dine at the local dump than in alpine meadows, the researchers said. Herrero advocates programs to address food and garbage attractants to prevent grizzlies from getting into trouble.

He's also in favour of having the bears' status changed to "threatened" in Alberta. The change would mean no hunting, and greater restrictions on road construction in grizzly habitat.

"Grizzly bear hunting can be maintained sustainably, but it can only be maintained sustainably if we put it in a context of addressing all the other causes of mortality," he said.

No it can't. There should be no bear hunting period. As Liberal opposition critic Bill Bonko has said:Liberal Critic Calls for Greater Protection for Grizzly Habitat

It's up to governments to decide what price they're willing to pay to make sure grizzlies survive in the Rocky Mountains, such as closing recreational trails for a few days or shutting off large tracts of land from oil and gas activity, forestry, coal mining or other industry, he said.

That's a cop out, the Klein government will take industrial development over protecting wildlife any day. That's why they opened up Kananaskis in the first place, for the Winter games and a golf course. Yep get out and enjoy the wilderness while putting around.

"Bears are under more pressure now than ever," agreed Nigel Douglas of the Alberta Wilderness Association. "We're sort of pushing and pushing and pushing the places where bears live. And some time we need to start saying enough's enough, and we need to take a step back and leave some room for the bears."

* FROM JULY 6, 2005: Alberta closes trails to keep people away from bears

Last week, the province moved to close a number of trails in provincial parks around Canmore and Kananaskis, saying they wanted to keep people away from bear habitats.

A Canmore woman was killed in early June when she was attacked by a grizzly while out running near a golf course.

Yes she was running in an area that had been blocked off due to the fact that Grizzly bears were out and about in the area. Being arrogant she and her friends ignored the signs and the result was she was killed. Being a young bruin the bear didn't know that the golf course was off limits.

The province said the decision to close the trails and allow them to grow over was not triggered by the mauling death of a jogger last month. On June 5, Isabelle Dube was running with two friends near the Silver Tip Golf Course in Canmore when they encountered a grizzly. Her friends backed away, while Dube, a 36-year-old mother of two, climbed a tree. When wildlife officers reached the scene, Dube had been killed. Those who knew her said Dube, a competitive mountain biker, would not want to see the trails closed.The province said 200 kilometres of trails in parks in the Canmore area will remain open for walkers, runners and cyclists.

As usual some of the community expressed the speciesism that given a choice between humans and bears they supported humans being stupid. Like those who still insist it is their god given right to trespass in Grizzly territory, for their Olympic aspirations, and their Olympian egos.

What part of Wild in Wilderness don't these little colonialists understand?

Not all of the citizens in Canmore are anti-bear, there is a campaign going on to actually make Canmore bear friendly.

Was killer Canmore handled properly?

The headline in today’s (June 7, 2005) Calgary Herald – “Was the killer bear handled properly?” – only hints at the complexity of factors that led to the tragic deaths of Isabelle Dubé and Bear #99 last Sunday. The real question, and answer, may rely less on handling bears than it does on handling people and human development.

And of course as a result of ignoring the warning that the trail was closed, resulted in the useless death of the Grizzly. Why, cause he was being a wild animal of course. And not a particulary aggressive one. But he got killed for having reacted to something these humans did, including being where they should not have been.

A wildlife officer, accompanied by one of the women, returned to the site of the attack, where the officer killed the bear with a single shot.
Bear relocated in May
Fish and Wildlife officials said the 90-kilogram, four-year-old male bear had been captured and moved out of the area at the end of May, after continually visiting the golf course and after it approached a woman. The woman and her small dog backed away slowly and the bear left.The bear was relocated not because of any aggressive behaviour, but as a way of discouraging it from approaching populated areas, said Ealey. With wildlife officers tracking it, the bear travelled from Banff National Park back to the Canmore area – about 15 kilometres over rugged terrain – in a few days.Ealey said the bear hadn't shown any aggressive behaviours since it returned. "The bear was not aggressive, it behaved as a bear its typical age and sex would," Ealey said when asked why the bear hadn't been moved farther away. The grizzly was kept within its home range, Ealey added. Dube was the first person killed by a bear in Alberta since 1998.

The grizzly that killed Dube. (photo: Craig Douce, Rocky Mountain Outlook)



As Bonko points out the problem is colonialist expansion in the Rockies;
"Bonko is concerned that the incursion of industrial development into natural habitat areas is driving grizzlies from their natural homes into human-populated areas, increasing the possibility of incidents between humans and grizzlies.

“It’s this government’s policies that have allowed for large-scale industrial development into these natural areas,” said Bonko. “The government now needs to take the responsible, proactive approach and set some guidelines to ensure our natural areas and our wildlife are not endangered by unsustainable human activity.”

A recent study conducted by a wildlife biologist at the U of A in the Bow Valley area indicates wildlife corridors constructed to reduce the impact of development on grizzlies have failed to control human-grizzly contact.

Bonko said the government needs to come up with a better solution for reducing the possibility of human-grizzly contact in places like Canmore, where unrestrained development has led to increased contact between humans and grizzlies.

“The government continues to favour industrial development over the protection of wildlife habitat,” said Bonko. “Unrestrained development with little to no protection for wildlife species will inevitably lead to the extinction of our threatened species.”

Grizzly's aren't as cute as cuddly seals, so the Green NGO's won't being using them as the poster child for their activism. Grizzlies can fight back and the Green NGO's like helpless victims for their fund raising campigns. The Save the Grizzly campaigns have been a mere whimper in comparison to the sturm and drang raised over the seal hunt. Lets see 700 bears vs. 300,000 seals which do you think will become extinct first?

Liberal MLA Bonko followed up on my suggestion on how we can challenge the Grizzly hunt;

Liberal SRD Critic Encourages Grizzly Bear Lovers to Get Hunting Licenses

01 March 2005
Edmonton – Alberta Liberal Sustainable Resource Development critic Bill Bonko is urging all Albertans concerned with protecting the grizzly bear population in Alberta to join him in entering the draw to receive a grizzly bear hunting license this Thursday.

Bonko wants thousands of grizzly bear lovers to enter the draw in the hopes that they receive the licenses and quickly destroy them upon receipt. The government has approved the issuing of 73 licenses for this year despite repeated warnings from their own scientists, as well as conservation groups, warning the government the grizzly bear population in Alberta should not be subject to another hunt.

”If every Albertan who expressed an interest in saving the grizzly bear population entered the draw for a license, the chances of an actual bear hunter receiving one would be greatly diminished,” said Bonko. “If the government refuses to save the grizzly bear population in this province, then this is what we need to do.”

Bonko has made repeated calls for the government to immediately suspend the grizzly bear hunt and implement a recovery strategy to ensure that the number of grizzly bears reaches an acceptable level.

It costs $3.25 to enter the draw for the license and $48.50 to receive the license if selected. Bonko thinks that is a small price to pay to help protect the grizzly bear population in Alberta. ”To mark the price of a grizzly bear’s life at $50 is nominal,” said Bonko. “It is a small price to pay to keep a priceless member of Alberta’s wildlife alive.”

The deadline to enter the grizzly bear license draw is at the end of business hours on Thursday, March 3. You can enter the draw at specified sporting goods and registrations outlets.

Fifty Bucks to kill a Grizzly, Fifty Bucks, is that all? That's disgraceful when you consider what outfitters charge to profit off the kill. $50 and you can help save the Grizzly. Get a license and don't use it. And while you are at it donate another $50 to Save the Grizzly Campaign.

And the reasons the government gives for allowing the hunting of an endangered species?

David Coutts’ Top 8 reasons to continue the grizzly hunt

5. Hunting harvest provides information about bears (e.g., data on distribution and age).

6. Hunting maintains a knowledgeable group of people who are strong advocates for Alberta's grizzly population.

7. Hunters, through licence fees, contribute financially to conservation and management of grizzlies.

8. There is a long-standing hunting tradition and a high demand.

Oh right kill the bears and be advocates for them thats rich, provide information on them, how about just tagging them, your $5o contributes to conservation...right....and finally there is a hunting tradition, really I thought Alberta was all about farming and resource extraction, and high demand, yeah from whom?

Spring grizzly hunt claims 10 bears in Alberta -- six more than last year

Ten grizzly bears were shot and killed during Alberta's controversial spring hunt, according to new statistics. Of the 10 bears killed in the April 1 to May 31 hunt, six were males and four were females. That compares to six grizzlies killed in the 2004 spring hunt and 18 the year before. "It's not as bad as some previous years, but it's still 10 bears out of a pretty small population, so that's a big concern," said Nigel Douglas, conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. There are about 700 grizzly bears in Alberta. Officials with the Alberta Fish and Game Association say that this spring's harvest shows hunters are not having a major impact on the population.

Aha, the Grizzly hunt is supported by the AFGA, which posts a picture of a big horn sheep and a bear on the front page of their website. Not deer, or other wild animal that can be used for food, but sport hunting/trophy hunting animals, a big horn and a bear. They claim of course that the bears like other wildlife are a 'natural resource', a commodity by any other name. And that their hunting is a cull that helps stabilize the Grizzly population.

14,000 hunters and fishermen can't be wrong, right? After all they are only 0.01% of the provincial population. That's hardly heavy demand.Especially since not all of them hunt, or hunt Grizzly. We wouldn't want to spoil their fun hunting for sport not food. Which is what bear hunting is. Hmmm I wonder if we culled the hunters what they would say about it being an effective way of conserving their population.

AFGA also promotes the hunting of other endangered species such as black bears, foxes and wolves. In Alberta you don't need to be a trained to hunt.

Not all first time hunters are required to successfully complete a Hunter Education Course in order to be eligible to hold a recreational hunting licence in Alberta. A person may be eligible because they have held a licence authorizing recreational hunting in Alberta or elsewhere, or may have passed the first time hunter test, or may be a non-resident (Canadian) or non-resident alien who is exempt from these requirements if they are hunting with a licenced guide or hunter host.
Government response to AGFA resolution on hunter eductation.

Hansard March 3, 2005

Grizzly Bear Hunt

Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today marks the deadline for applications to be included in the random draw for the spring grizzly bear hunt to commence this April. This hunt is being continued despite the warnings of the government’s own grizzly bear recovery team as well as the warnings of conservation groups which call for the spring bear hunt to be postponed due to the low numbers of grizzly bears in Alberta. To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development: why is this government refusing to listen to the findings of their own experts and allowing the grizzly bear hunt to continue?

Cause it's a one party state and they can do what they want to, do what they want to they want to. Why the Alberta government won’t protect its grizzly bears

Federal Court Halts Illegal Logging in 

Endangered Grizzly Habitat in NW Montana

BY MIKE GARRITYFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Photo: Glen Phillips.

On May 25, a federal district court in Montana halted a large-scale industrial logging project in endangered grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana.  The Alliance for the Wild Rockies requested the preliminary injunction to protect the small, isolated, and imperiled Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear population from further harm.

The Ripley logging project authorized almost 17 square miles of commercial logging (10,854 acres) on publicly-owned National Forest lands, including roughly five square miles of clearcuts (3,223 acres).  The project also authorized the construction of 30 miles of new logging roads, as well as reconstruction of 93 miles of logging roads.  By the U.S. Forest Service’s own estimate, the project would cost federal taxpayers $643,000 to implement because the receipts from the commercial timber sales do not cover the cost of the ecological remediation necessary after the project.

The federal court found that the project is most likely illegal because the government did not analyze the cumulative impacts on grizzly bears from logging on public lands, state lands, and private lands all at the same time.  Roads pose the biggest threat to grizzly bears, followed by logging and habitat removal.  And the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly population in particular is in bad shape.  The most recent actual count of grizzlies (published in 2021 for the 2020 monitoring year) for this population is 45 bears.  The prior year counted 50 bears, and the year before that counted 54 bears.  However, the government’s own Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan requires 100 bears for the minimum viable population.

The Cabinet-Yaak grizzly population is also failing every recovery target and goal: it is failing the target for females with cubs; it is failing the target for distribution of females with cubs; it is failing the female mortality limit (which is 0 mortalities until a minimum of 100 bears is reached); and it is failing the mortality limit for all bears (also 0 mortalities until a minimum of 100 bears is reached).

A 2016 peer-reviewed, published scientific research paper, Kendall et al. (2016), analyzed the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly population in detail based on extensive and systematic DNA collection in the region and found: “In the small Cabinet and Yaak populations, the difference between growth and decline is 1 or 2 adult females being killed annually or not.”  Humans killed two female Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bears in 2020.

Kendall et al. 2016 further found: “the small size, isolation, and inbreeding documented by this study demonstrate the need for comprehensive management designed to support [Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem] population growth and increased connectivity and gene flow with other populations.”

Consistent with these serious concerns about the potential extirpation of the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly, the court held: “the [Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem] population of grizzly bears is especially vulnerable.”  The court further explained that the government had relied on “knowingly false assumptions,” had “grossly misstate[d] the applicable law,” and had engaged in “evidentiary sandbagging” in the case.

The court ultimately held:  “Plaintiff is likely to succeed in proving that [the government’s] decision to not attempt to obtain and disclose data concerning reasonably certain State and private activities, and the agencies’ decision to rely on a factual assumption they know to be incorrect in assessing the Project’s cumulative effects on the grizzly bear, violated the ESA and were arbitrary and capricious.”

This win is a great victory for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzlies.  But this case is not over.  It will take a lot of hard work and money to protect this victory.  Please consider donating to support our decades-long commitment to saving the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear.

Mike Garrity is the executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

Cattle Grazing = Death Traps for Yellowstone

 Grizzly Bears

BY MIKE GARRITYFacebookTwitter

RedditEmail

Scientists estimate 46,500 -72,200 grizzly bears ranged over a million square miles of the West when European settlers showed up more than two centuries ago. Today about 1550 grizzly bears occupy only 3% of their former range in five demographically isolated populations in the Northern Rockies that face threats of inbreeding.

Grizzly bears were listed as “threatened” in the lower 48 states under the Endangered Species Act in 1975 – nearly a half century ago. The Endangered Species Act exists for one reason: to protect and recover threatened and endangered species until they are no longer vulnerable to current and foreseeable threats.

One of the major hurdles for grizzly bear recovery is to have one connected, genetically sound population – not five isolated inbred populations.  Due to the physical disconnect from other populations, the Yellowstone grizzlies remain vulnerable to inbreeding and continue to require the legal protections of the Endangered Species Act.

As the range of grizzlies expands, the most promising corridor for reconnecting Yellowstone’s bears with other populations is the area including and surrounding the Beartooth-Absaroka Wilderness Area on Yellowstone National Park’s northern border.

And that’s where the problem comes in – and why the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and seven other conservation groups recently sent a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the decision to renew and expand the East Paradise cattle grazing allotments.  Simply put, sticking cattle in grizzly habitat has one predictable result – a death sentence for the grizzlies.

The East Paradise decision also moves up the cattle grazing season from July 1 to June 1, virtually ensuring the cows and new calves will run into grizzly bears that are hungry after hibernating all winter.  Traditionally, grizzlies stalk early season elk and deer calves for an easy meal.  But now, thanks to this reckless public lands grazing decision, hungry grizzlies will also find cattle calves as another easy meal.

Calves account for almost all grizzly bear depredation and the younger the calf, the greater the odds of falling victim to these predators—with peak vulnerability up to 5 months old.  Depredation is virtually guaranteed if cattle are left unattended for weeks on end as they are in the East Paradise and many other grazing allotments.

It is not like we have a shortage of threatened or endangered cows!  Montana has an estimated 2.6 million cows – 1,733 cows for every one of the estimated 1500 grizzlies scattered over the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the rest of Montana.  As historic foods such as highly nutritious whitebark pine nuts and Yellowstone cutthroat trout decline due to climate change and the planting of non-native fish, grizzly bears are expanding their range and eating more meat – and are now at greater risk of being killed as they conflict with humans and livestock in a desperate search for food.

Although most human-caused grizzly mortalities occur near roads through poaching, mis-identification by black bear hunters, and collisions, when bears hassle cattle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services is called in to kill them. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Fish and Wildlife reports that from 1980 to 2001 of the 191 total grizzly mortalities, 82% or 156 were human caused mortalities.  Of these 156 killed grizzlies, nine bears were killed to protect livestock interests.

From 2002 to 2020, however, the numbers jumped significantly.  Of the 563 grizzlies that died 86% or 483 were killed by humans.  Of these 483 grizzlies killed by people, 122 bears were killed to protect livestock – more than one in four!  In Wyoming’s Upper Green River grazing allotments on the south side of Yellowstone the Fish and Wildlife Services recently authorized killing 72 grizzly bears over 10 years to protect cattle.

We’re giving the Forest Service 60 days to reconsider their grazing decision and do the right thing for America’s grizzly bear recovery efforts.  The agency should simply retire these grazing allotments that are enticing grizzly bears into death traps with an easy meal and restore the native vegetation that’s been battered by livestock to provide healthy, secure habitat so grizzly bears can safely move between Yellowstone and other ecosystems.

But if the Forest Service decides to go ahead with their ill-advised grazing leases, we will take them to federal court. We’d greatly appreciate your help in doing everything possible to attain safe travel corridors and the highest level of security for bears by retiring grazing allotment death traps for grizzly bears.

Mike Garrity is the executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

Grizzly Hunting is Trophy Hunting

BY MIKE BADER

MAY 23, 2024

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Grizzly bear north of Obsidian Cliff, Yellowstone. Photo: Jim Peaco, National Park Service. 

A final decision on the petitions to remove the grizzly bear from the list of threatened species and the protections of the Endangered Species Act (delisting) may come in June or early July. Currently, authority over grizzly bear management is vested in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. If the petitions are approved, management will be turned over to the states.

Both Montana and Wyoming would have trophy hunts for grizzly bears. Wyoming would begin immediately and Montana in five years. But what would stop the politicians once they’ve achieved control over the bears?

Keep in mind that all grizzly bear hunting is trophy hunting. There is no subsistence hunting for bears in the lower 48. People do not eat bear meat and Montana hunting regulations do not require black bear hunters to eat the meat. To the contrary, hunters of elk, deer and other species can be fined if they waste the meat. Grizzly bear hunting is for the trophy and the thrill of shooting a grizzly bear.

Montana might use private citizens to remove bears with a history of management or habituation. This is not hunting. Since most bears with a management history are radio-collared, hunters might be directed to the bear’s location. This is not ethical or fair chase nor would it be allowed for any other animal.

The states also intend to arbitrarily limit where grizzly bears may be, even where they are in excellent habitat on public lands such as the Missouri Breaks with over one million acres of public lands and Wilderness. Hunting tags may be issued in specific areas to limit grizzly bear distribution to Wilderness and National Parks, which are not large enough to support viable populations. It’s the antithesis of wildlife habitat connectivity.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWPs) earned a reputation as being the leading state wildlife management agency in the U.S. and has been highly trusted by the public. Unfortunately, political interference is tarnishing this reputation. The Montana Fish & Wildlife Commission used to have professional biologists as members including Chairs Dr. Gary Wolf and Dr. Bob Ream. No more. There is not a single biologist on the Commission, whose members are all appointed by the Governor.

Moreover, the legislature enacted many laws governing wildlife management that retired FWPs biologists and others have warned are extreme, unsporting and threaten stable populations of wildlife. This pervasive influence led FWPs to produce a statewide management plan for grizzly bears that reads like a trophy hunting plan. Many justifications are offered for trophy hunting grizzly bears, but few if any for not doing it.

The political override of state biologists is affecting Montana’s wildlife heritage from elk on down the line. In Wyoming the Cody Roberts wolf torture episode, which Wyoming Fish & Game sat on for five weeks, further erodes confidence in state management of carnivores and predators. Trust must be re-earned and that takes time.

If you oppose the trophy hunting of grizzly bears then you must also oppose removing the grizzly bear from the protections of the Endangered Species Act because that would immediately enable unsustainable trophy hunting. Relisting a species is almost unheard of and takes much time that the grizzly bear does not have.

There is no ordinary hunting of grizzly bears. It is trophy hunting plain and simple. Please consider contacting the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and tell them no delisting and no trophy hunting of grizzly bears.  In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150, which is the docket number for this action.

Mike Bader is an independent consultant in Missoula, Montana with nearly 40 years of experience in land management and species protection. In his early career he was a seasonal ranger in Yellowstone involved in grizzly bear management and research. He has published several papers on grizzly bears and is the co-author of a recent paper on grizzly bear denning and demographic connectivity that has been accepted for publication in a scientific journal.

Tribes Defeat Trump Administration and NRA in 9th Circuit on Sacred Grizzly Bear Appeal

by COUNTERPUNCH NEWS SERVICE JULY 8, 2020

Chief Arvol Looking Horse. Photo: Alter-Native Media.

San Francisco, CA.

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals handed tribal nations an overwhelming victory Wednesday (7/8) in its ruling on the Trump administration-led appeal of a US District Court decision on Crow Tribe, et al v. Zinke. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana sought to reverse the September 2018 ruling by Judge Dana Christensen that returned the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections.

It was the second major defeat of the week for the Trump administration, following Judge James Boasberg’s ruling in US District Court in DC that the Dakota Access Pipeline had to be shut down pending an environmental review. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is a plaintiff in both cases.

The 9^th Circuit panel upheld Judge Christensen’s ruling, and validated key arguments made on behalf of the 17-member tribal plaintiff alliance, who again prevailed over intervenor-defendant-appellants, Safari Club International, the NRA, and a coalition of trophy hunting organizations, Big Ag, and ranching interests.

Tribal plaintiffs raised serious concerns about the FWS’s acceptance and facilitation of state-sponsored trophy hunts of the grizzly, and the impact those hunts would have on the already fragmented grizzly population. Tribes contended that trophy hunts would end any credible possibility of linkage zones between the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem populations and would further diminish genetic diversity in these ostensibly island populations. Both would make actual recovery untenable.

The Appellate panel agreed that the Trump administration’s Department of Interior had failed to adhere to its criteria of using “the best available science” in its decision-making process.

“Because there are no concrete, enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure long-term genetic health of the Yellowstone grizzly, the district court correctly concluded that the 2017 Rule is arbitrary and capricious,” the panel wrote in its decision.

Tribal grizzly bear treaty. Photo: Alter-Native Media.

Several of the indigenous community’s most-respected spiritual leaders are among the tribal plaintiffs, including Chief Arvol Looking Horse, Blackfeet Sun Dance leader Nolan Yellow Kidney, Zuni Religious Society headman, Kenny Bowekaty, and Cheyenne Sun Dance Priest, Don Shoulderblade. The tribal movement to protect the grizzly began when Shoulderblade founded GOAL Tribal Coalition.

The spiritual leaders all attested to the immense cultural significance of the grizzly bear. The abrogation of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act by the federal government in its attempts to delist and trophy hunt the grizzly was a significant element in tribes’ opposition.

“The grizzly bear is revered as sacred in a multitude of tribal cultures. The grizzly is our relative, a grandparent. For us at Hopi, the grizzly is our brother; a teacher of ceremonial and healing practices,” said Ben Nuvamsa, spokesman for the Hopi Bear Clan. “We don’t trophy hunt our grandparents. To some tribes, the grizzly is a deity. How can the trophy hunting of a deity not impact your religious and spiritual freedoms?” he asked.

Both tribal and environmental plaintiffs argued that FWS prioritized political favor, not science or the established regulatory mechanism, and “gerrymandered” data and its population estimates to fit the Trump administration’s fossil-fuel-oriented agenda. The 9^th Circuit found that FWS’s failure to fully commit to recalibration should new methods of population estimates be employed by the three states – each of which Trump carried in 2016 – again contravened the ESA:

“The FWS violated the ESA’s directive to make listing decisions ‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data’ when it failed to include a commitment to recalibration despite the FWS’s acknowledgment that a failure to provide such provision could threaten the Yellowstone grizzlies.”

The panel also noted how the states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana were “deeply involved in the adoption of the Conservation Strategy” and how they “objected to any recalibration commitment.”

Despite petitions led by then-Oglala Sioux Tribe President, John Steele, and present Vice President, Tom Poor Bear, tribal nations were omitted from participating in the formulation of the Conservation Strategy, which was one of numerous violations of the federal-Indian trust responsibility committed by Interior.

Throughout the struggle, tribal plaintiffs emphasized that the Trump administration’s determination to delist the grizzly bear in Greater Yellowstone was a “Trojan Horse” with far-reaching consequences beyond the matter of federal protections for the Great Bear.

The federal government failed to uphold government-to-government consultation mandates, and the record demonstrates that it did not engage in “thorough” or “meaningful” consultation, but instead offered “alternative facts” to the media, which resulted in one tribal plaintiff, the Northern Arapaho Elders Society, filing a cease and desist order.

As the 9^th Circuit highlighted, the states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana were instrumental in formulating the post-delisting policies and regulations. Documentation exposes how FWS wanted tribal nations with grizzly bear populations on their lands to adopt what were essentially state management plans which would, stated plaintiffs, have undermined tribal sovereignty, and set a “dangerous precedent.”

The federal government has long acknowledged that Greater Yellowstone is ancestral land to some 27 tribal nations, the Pawnee being the latest to be recognized. Prior to taking the issue to federal court, tribal plaintiffs explained how removing ESA protections from the sacred grizzly bear would concurrently remove protections from their sacred lands, and open the door to extractive industry and livestock interests to exploit a greatly diminished regulatory process for land leases. Several tribal organizations testified to this at a fall 2018 US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

“This is a historic day for tribal nations,” said Chief Stan C. Grier, Chief of the Piikani Nation. “Today I once again ask President Trump and Interior Secretary Bernhardt, a veteran fossil fuel lobbyist, this question: How can you possibly manage the sacred? One cannot manage the sacred; one seeks, reveres, and stands humbled by the presence of the sacred.”

“To the People of the Land, our tribal nations, our relatives, this momentous decision is a step towards reclaiming that which was taken from us. The future of my children and grandchildren, and yours, depends upon us protecting the environment and halting climate change. The grizzly bear is foundational to that fundamental struggle,” stressed Grier.

Grier became a prominent voice in the grizzly cause. The Piikani Nation introduced the “Grizzly Treaty,” which is now the most-signed tribal treaty in history with over 200 tribal nation signatories. The treaty was authored by Rain Bear Stands Last, then-chief of staff to Grier, who is now executive director of the Global Indigenous Council. Rain managed the tribal plaintiffs’ litigation with lead counsel, Jeff Rasmussen, of Patterson, Earnhart, Real Bird and Wilson, LLP. He also directed the short film, Not In Our Name, that was entered into the Congressional record at a May 2019 hearing on the grizzly bear.

The tenets of the Grizzly Treaty inspired The Tribal Heritage and Grizzly Bear Protection Act that was introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman, Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

“Make no mistake, this is a seminal case and moment for Indian Country. Look at the forces arrayed against us, and yet we prevailed. We not only saved the sacred grizzly bear, we saved our religious freedoms, our ancestral lands, and defended tribal sovereignty and our treaty rights. We held this administration accountable for its failure to uphold the federal-Indian trust responsibility,” said Tom Rodgers, President of the Global Indigenous Council.

Images courtesy of Alter-Native Media.

Back on the List: A Big Win for Yellowstone Grizzlies and the Endangered Species Act, a Big Loss for Trump and Its Enemies

by MIKE GARRITY – ERIK MOLVAR JULY 9, 2020

Yellowstone Grizzlies. Photo: National Park Service.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling today on the litigation over the 2018 de-listing of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population under the Endangered Species Act, affirming a District Court order that blocked the de-listing of the great bears and kept them listed as a ‘threatened species’ under the Endangered Species Act. Today’s ruling keeps grizzly bears under federal management, and blocks sport hunting of the bears in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

This is a major victory for the embattled Yellowstone grizzly bear population, and a big win for science.  The court clearly recognized that the Fish and Wildlife Service was bowing to political pressure from the states in stripping grizzlies of their ESA protections, while ignoring the very clear scientific evidence that this bear population is too small and too isolated to be assured of long-term survival.

The Circuit Court ruled that because there were no concrete, enforceable mechanisms in place  to ensure long-term genetic health of the Yellowstone grizzly, the district court correctly concluded that the 2017 Rule was arbitrary and capricious in that regard. The Circuit Court also affirmed that “FWS’s decision to drop the commitment to recalibration in the conservation strategy violated the ESA because it was the result of political pressure by the states rather than having been based on the best scientific and commercial data.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is very important because the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is expanding but not growing. The population has not been growing for the last 20 years.  Grizzlies are expanding because their food sources are declining, whitebark pine trees and Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations have been decimated.  Yellowstone grizzlies have been moving out of their core habitat in a desperate search for food.  As these bears move out to their former habitat.

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming are desperate to start shooting grizzly bears which still need to be protected because they will not be recovered until we have one connected population.  The current situation of isolated populations will lead to inbreeding. Once a population is inbred, it is finished.  We are thrilled that the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Endangered Species Act requires that species be managed based on science, not politics.

The plaintiff group of Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Western Watersheds Project, and Native Ecosystems Council was one of five conservation and tribal plaintiff groups (plus one individual) who sued to reverse the de-listing of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, winning a District Court victory in 2018. They were opposed by state and federal governments and trophy hunting
groups including the National Rifle Association and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, seeking to strip grizzlies of protection.