Are the translocations enough to show Montana is ready for delisting?
By Benjamin Alva Polley EBS COLUMNIST
On Aug. 7, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks successfully relocated two subadult grizzlies from northwestern Montana to Yellowstone National Park, specifically Wyoming. This is part of an ongoing effort to support genetic diversity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s isolated population. The Gianforte administration believes this effort further warrants that grizzlies be delisted from the federal Endangered Species List. Does this translocation prove the state is ready to take over the management of grizzlies?
“Working with the state of Wyoming and our partners, we achieved the goals set for us, and we’ve shown the ability to manage bears, protect habitat, and population numbers,” Gianforte said outside Montana’s Capitol in Helena the Monday after. The Gianforte administration is known for its pro-business and pro-hunting-grizzlies stance.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will decide in late January 2025 whether to delist grizzlies. Montana and Wyoming have petitioned the federal government to delist, asserting the states can manage them without assistance from the feds. In the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems, the states have met the delisting requirements, addressing concerns identified by the public and outlined by courts through various proceedings that overturned previous delisting. Those criteria include reaching population recovery, having conflict prevention and response programs in place, continuing research and monitoring, establishing a regulatory framework for managing grizzlies once delisted, and safeguarding genetic health.
When I spoke with Christopher Servheen, president of the Montana Wildlife Federation and retired grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for a Mountain Outlaw story in 2023, he emphasized that grizzlies reaching a population target was not the only criterion for delisting. Instead, he stressed the need for adequate mortality management strategies to ensure grizzly populations don’t decline. He pointed out potential threats, such as FWP’s allowance of wolf snaring, which could harm grizzly populations, and the removal of bears that leave the recovery areas. This underlines the potential negative impact of delisting on grizzly bear populations, a concern that should deeply resonate with everyone.
“I used to be for grizzly delisting until a few years ago,” Servheen said. “Montana’s proposed plan does not emphasize conflict reduction or coexistence.”
The plan talks about reducing grizzly numbers and their range by killing bears outside their recovery areas deemed “threatening,” a term never defined in the plan.
“Montana’s draft management plan provides a ruthless approach to grizzlies outside recovery zones,” Servheen said. “It allows the killing of non-conflict bears just because they exist on public and private lands outside the recovery zones. This is such a departure from how Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks used to do things in the past.”
In the last few years, Montana’s legislature passed several bills allowing wolf snaring, expanding wolf trapping seasons into the period when grizzlies are out of the den, and using hounds to hunt black bears. According to Servheen, all of these acts also infringe upon grizzly safety.
“In the past, there were good regulatory mechanisms that are now being eroded by legislation and politicians getting into wildlife management,” he said. “Politicians shouldn’t be making wildlife policy.”
Has Montana’s state animal fully recovered enough to warrant delisting? According to estimated historical populations, as many as 50,000 bruins once strutted from the Pacific Coast to the Mississippi River and from northern Mexico to Alaska. Today, an estimated 2,000 bears roam the Lower 48, primarily in Montana and Wyoming, with a few trickling into Idaho—but even those estimates are tenuous. The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem has over 1,000 grizzlies, as does the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, but these two populations are isolated. They are separated by a roughly 35-mile gap on certain edges.
As one of the slowest-reproducing mammals on the planet, grizzly bears will always be sensitive to mortality and thus require continuous, strong conservation measures. The need to keep Endangered Species Act safeguards in place is urgent until science shows grizzly bears are fully recovered and until the states have adequate rules to ensure grizzly bears will thrive for future generations. This urgency is a call to action for all stakeholders in grizzly bear conservation, emphasizing the importance of their role in continued conservation efforts.
While FWP’s translocation of a 3- to 4-year-old female and a 4- to 5-year-old male is a step towards conservation, it’s important to remember that their survival and breeding ability are not guaranteed. Humans must complete wildlife corridors and bridges connecting these isolated populations. This will ensure that more than two bears enter the opposite population, fostering a sense of hope for the future of grizzlies.
Female grizzlies don’t sexually mature until four to eight years. When they mate, they can have one to four cubs and raise them for three years before the subadults go out and look for a home range. Mating season is usually May through July. This female wasn’t translocated until August. It could be another year before she mates and two winters before she gives birth. That’s five to seven years before either of these bears has offspring old enough to join the population independently and help boost genetic diversity within the species.
This timeline underscores the need for patience and a long-term commitment to conservation efforts, which are not just crucial but also urgent in wildlife conservation. Delisting grizzlies would reverse the slow and steady progress that has brought us this far.
Given the current situation, I don’t think the state is ready to take over the reins of managing grizzlies from the feds until this administration proves that science, not politics, is guiding it. We need to proceed with caution and ensure that the best interests of the grizzlies are at the forefront of any decision.
Benjamin Alva Polley is a place-based storyteller. His stories have been published in Audubon, Esquire, Field & Stream, The Guardian, Outside, Popular Science, Sierra, and other publications on his website. He holds a master’s in Environmental Science and Natural Resource Journalism from the University of Montana.
