Common ground on grizzly recovery?

It is by no means universal, but voices as disparate as the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Idaho Office of Species Conservation find themselves occupying a small parcel of common ground. Each side agrees grizzly bears should be allowed to reoccupy central Idaho’s wild heart on their own and efforts to trap bears from other areas and physically release them in the Bitterroot should be avoided.

One (but not the only) reason is the region’s experience with wolf reintroduction some 30 years ago. In the 1990s, the federal government captured wolves from Canada and released them into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Idaho leaders, many local governments and residents of the Gem State opposed the move that for them was symbolic of the heavy hand of the federal government and continues to tote baggage to this day.

Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said it could have been different.

“Wolves were coming back on their own. They made it to Glacier National Park and people didn’t seem too upset,” he said. “But once the government helicoptered and trucked them into central Idaho and Yellowstone, a lot of people were really angry. They blamed the federal government.”

Michael Edmondson, administrator of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation, expressed a similar view in official comments submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in advance of the agency revising its grizzly recovery plan for the expansive Bitterroot ecosystem, which includes the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness areas.

“Much of the negative attitude towards a grizzly reintroduction is a consequence of the gray wolf reintroduction which was conducted over the objections of locals and has negatively impacted their livelihoods and ability to enjoy the outdoors,” Edmondson wrote. “Repeating the same pattern with grizzly bears in the (Bitterroot ecosystem) will only further negative perceptions of (Endangered Species Act) listed predators reoccupying their historical range.”

To be clear, Idaho officials and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies are far from simpatico. Idaho takes a conservative approach to recovery of grizzly bears and other critters protected by the ESA. The state believes grizzly bears should be stripped of their protective status under the act and is suing the federal government in an attempt to make that happen. Idaho also thinks the Bitterroot doesn’t have enough of the food resources needed to support a recovered grizzly bear population.

The Alliance, considered “extreme” by some, often heads to court in an attempt to stop logging and other projects on federal land. In fact, Garrity’s group successfully sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to implement its 21-year-old plan to reintroduce 25 of the great bears to the Bitterroot. The plan crafted under the Clinton administration was shelved when George W. Bush was elected. It has sat idle since.

The legal action forced the agency to start anew the long-dormant effort to recover grizzlies in central Idaho. Earlier this year, the service asked people what sort of alternatives it should consider as it prepares a new environmental impact statement on grizzly recovery in the Bitterroot.

Because of the lawsuit, people sometimes mistakenly think the Alliance supports physical reintroduction. But Garrity said the group has always opposed translocating bears and sued to compel the agency to restart the recovery process, preferably with a new approach.

Other stakeholders who favor natural recovery over reintroduction include the Idaho Wildlife Federation, Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, and Sierra Club.

“If we avoid translocating them and they establish naturally it will happen slower but they will be less demonized. They will be used less as a political football,” said Brian Brooks, executive director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation.

But there is some support for moving bears in. The Montana Wildlife Federation, Great Burn Conservation Alliance and the Defenders of Wildlife back natural recovery but think the bears may need an occasional assist.

“The MWF preferred alternative in the EIS would include natural recolonization combined with periodic augmentation of additional females into the north end of the Bitterroot ecosystem as more grizzly bears move naturally into the ecosystem,” wrote Chris Servheen, the president of the Montana Wildlife Federation and retired grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Nez Perce Tribe hasn’t settled on a preferred approach, but Eric Kash Kash, director of its Wildlife Division, said Nez Perce people consider the great bears to be relatives and a critical part of the ecosystem.

“Grizzly bears have huge cultural significance to our people. They belong there. They have been part of our aboriginal homeland for millennia,” he said. “We firmly believe they belong there by whatever means necessary.”

Kash Kash said any reintroduction plan needs to include public awareness and education campaigns that teach people how to coexist with grizzlies. That is another place where there is widespread agreement.

Jeff Abrams, of the Idaho Conservation League, said the state’s residents should play an active role in shaping the recovery plan.

“This is really an opportunity for Idahoans to step to the forefront now and improve the destiny of bears in our state,” he said. “Efforts in (the Northern Continental Divide) have mostly occurred in Montana, Yellowstone bears have been administered most by Wyoming and the (Fish and Wildlife) Service. Now it’s really time for Idahoans to take center stage and really engage in this process and adapt what has happened in the past to what we need during these times.”

Many commenters also urged the Fish and Wildlife to consider how to help recovery by putting in place “connectivity” policies that will help grizzlies move from Idaho’s Panhandle Region, northwestern Montana and the Yellowstone ecosystem into Idaho. In recent years, grizzly bears have ventured into the Bitterroot in what the wildlife officials describe as exploratory trips. But they have yet to establish a permanent population.

Adams said connectivity policies could include wildlife crossing structures that help bears and other critters cross Interstate 90 in northern Idaho, and encouraging Wyoming and Montana to let dispersing bears reach Idaho.

Idaho and many commenters are worried grizzly bears will put more downward pressure on struggling wilderness elk herds, be prone to prey on livestock like cattle and sheep, and induce land use restrictions.

“Every time they list a critter, it removes treatment of land for wildfire and restricts access for recreation,” said Idaho County Commissioner Skip Brandt.

The service is combing over the comments and will next write a draft environmental impact statement. That document is expected to be released next March. More information is available at fws.gov/BitterrootEIS.

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273. Follow him on Twitter @ezebarker.