by Louisa Willcox
On March 3rd, Senators Conrad Burns (R-Montana), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Craig Thomas (R-Wyoming) sent a request to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt for the delisting of the grizzly bear, after receiving a recent report which indicated that the grizzly in the lower forty-eight states has "less that a one in a million chance of becoming extinct" in one hundred years. This finding by Dr. Mark Boyce of the College of Natural Resources at the University of Wisconsin, is part of a habitat-based study funded by Congress (1998 Interior Appropriations rider that delayed the Selway- Bitterroot reintroduction) and requested by Senators Burns and (then) Senator Kempthorne. While the report has not yet been released formally to the public and has not been peer reviewed, the senators seized on this particular finding—a small, selected piece—to push for delisting of the grizzly bear in the lower forty-eight.
Unfortunately, the study is seriously flawed and employed a model selected to produce pre-ordained results. Further, this science was partially designed and then distorted by anti-endangered species elected officials (and their lackeys) with a political agenda to delist the grizzly bears, and to open the door for unlimited exploitation of important habitat. Interestingly, the part of the study that found that roughly 300 bears could live in the S/B, thereby increasing grizzly bears overall survival prospects, was considered suspect and prompted calls by these senators for peer review.
The approach selected is plagued with major flaws including the following:
- The statement "one in a million chance of extinction" referred to total extinctions of all remaining populations; framing the issue this way, Boyce completely missed the point. The public is concerned about recovery potential (not merely extinction probability) for any and each population (and the ESA requires recovery of each population). The fact that there may be a few bears hanging on does not indicate health, viability or anything but near extinction— and certainly does not mean recovery has been achieved, habitat is adequately protected, or that the future trends look good for the grizzly. Just because a sick person may not be quite dead does not mean he/she should be shoved out of the hospital and declared recovered;
- Boyce assumed that the next 100 years of habitat conditions and grizzly demographics will resemble the last 20-30 years, despite declining trends in key food sources and increases in human population numbers in the region that indicate this assumption is simply not true. Even Boyce himself said in a paper he wrote in 1995 that the future is unlikely to resemble the past;
- The timeframe of 100 years is too short to be meaningful to understand future prospects of a long-lived species such as the grizzly;
- Even using his distorted approach, there is a reasonable probability that two populations will go extinct in 100 years—hardly building confidence in delisting proposal. Using inappropriate assumptions and very little pertinent data, Dr. Boyce’s model seems to be designed to provide false optimism for bear survival. His study appears to reflect the depth to which politics can interfere in scientific inquiry. This sad story is yet another example of the corrupt nature of the current grizzly recovery process. It also underscores the need for an open public dialogue and rigorous scientific review of the entire recovery program.
Several independent scientists are working to respond to this report in detail. We will circulate the results when this analysis is available. In the meantime, here are a few issues that have surfaced so far in scientists’ dialogue about the Boyce report which you might find useful.
What The Boyce Report Does Say
If grizzly bears are fully recovered within the several "ecosystems" of the Northern Rockies [i.e. all of these areas have as many bears as they can hold] and if grizzly habitat does not degrade further [no further roading, development,...] then and only then,
- There is a very low probability that all grizzly bears would disappear from the lower 48 states in the 100 years after those conditions are met.
- The probability that all of these populations will persist for 100 years, even after those conditions are met, is alarmingly low, perhaps only 54%.
Establishment of a Bitterroot grizzly bear population will greatly increase chances for long-term survival of the bear in the lower 48 states. This is true whether or not these populations are connected among themselves or with populations of bears in Canada.
What The Boyce Report Does NOT Say
The report does not say or imply that present numbers of bears represent a demographically-healthy condition.
The report does not say or imply that management plans sufficient to insure the survival of grizzlies in the lower 48 states have been put in place or developed.
The Model Used To Derive Probabilities of Survival
There is considerable scientific sentiment that the model used is not an ideal tool for insight into the future prospects of the grizzly bear. Appropriate alterations to such a model or superior, alternative models are expected to produce much higher estimates of extinction probabilities.