Switchboard, from NRDC › Louisa Willcox's Blog

Why we need to protect Alberta's Castle wildlands

2012-01-17T18:43:58Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Today I got an update from my friends in Alberta about a protest underway to save critical wildlands in the Castle area of southwest Alberta. Despite the frigid winter temperatures, 50 or so friends of the Castle have banded together in a last ditch effort to stop logging in some of the best habitat remaining for grizzly bears in this portion of the province. Their protest is being held under strict rules for non violent disobedience. Protesters are literally standing in front of the logging equipment that any day could cut into and destroy this small island of vital habitat for bears and other species.

One of the leaders of the protest is an old friend Mike Judd, who many years ago did a roadshow in my habitat around the Greater Yellowstone on the effects of natural gas development in the high elevation ecosystems surrounding Waterton/ Glacier Peace Park. He was a bit like the Spirit of Christmas Future in Dicken’s A Christmas Carol, showing the consequences of unbridled energy development in fragile high mountain country. He provided a warning to us in Yellowstone about the devastating effects of gas developers if unleashed across the landscape – a warning that motivated many of us to work to prevent important parts of Wyoming’s Bridger Teton forest from suffering a similar fate.

Mike may have aged some, but he has not lost his passion. He has taught me much about what it means to be dedicated to a landscape. He grew up in the Castle, where he conducted an outfitting business and even picked up the Blackfoot language, in an effort to better understand connections to the land and culture where he lived.

There is no reason to log the Castle, and there are important reasons why we in the US should want to save it. The Castle is a vital part of the Glacier/Waterton ecosystem, one of the strongholds for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states. We in the US need bears in the adjacent lands in Canada to maintain bears south of the border – a border that looks from the air like a thin swath cut through an otherwise wild forest. It means a few strides for bears and other wildlife to cross, but it means many differences for wildlife and habitat management. We share the same ecosystem, and we need to work together to keep the whole healthy: neither country can maintain this ecosystem by itself.

A little more than a year ago, the Alberta government declared that the grizzly bear in the province was threatened under Alberta’s Wildlife Act. You would think that would bring about added protections and a precautionary approach to managing the province’s remaining bears. But no. At least, not yet.

That is why we are trying to mount a groundswell to tell the premier of Alberta that logging should be prohibited and that the area should be designated as a Wildland park. It is not too late to save the Castle. Please take action by going here.

It is high time that the Alberta government change course and save this magnificent place, which is vital not just to Albertans, but to all of us who care about irreplaceable stretch of country that is the heart of the wild Rockies. No more than ever, we need to extend hands across the border to save species that do not carry passports.

For additional background you can also visit: http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/castle-special-place/action-alert/stop-castle-special-place-logging-and-drilling

Photos and perspectives of the November, 2011 Keystone XL Pipeline protest

2012-01-13T22:57:38Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

It has taken me a while to process the many photos I took at the Nov 6, 2011 Keystone XL pipeline protest that involved encircling the White House, but I got a few good ones that I would like to share. What amazed me was the diversity of people -- young and old -- who stood in solidarity against the construction of a pipeline that would carry some of the world’s dirtiest fuels through some of the precious and vulnerable lands in the US and Canada. A cadre of Montanans, including my good friend Frances Stewart and the actress Margot Kidder, made the long trip to DC to join in the fray. Margie was especially excited to be back in Lafayette Park, where she and many others were arrested last summer in another protest against the pipeline.

Montanans, including myself, walked shoulder to shoulder with ranchers from the Sand Hills of Nebraska and others from Canada and the Midwest who would bear the brunt of the impacts of this ill-conceived pipeline. I was proud of the major turnout of NRDC staff and members too who, with 12,000 others, took time that day to encircle the White House not just once, but several times.

The day was a joyous celebration of special landscapes, and an unequivocal expression of opposition to a pipeline that represents everything that a sane energy policy should strive to avoid: the industrialization of ecologically unique places, major climate change effects, a high likelihood of accidents and spills, disruption of communities, and subsidies for big business to create a mess that future generations will have to deal with. While the Obama administration has since delayed the permitting of the pipeline, we have many miles to go to stop its construction.

As the debate continues, in the meantime I thought you might enjoy a few photos that captured some of the spirit of the day.

This young man was perched on his father’s shoulders to better see the crowd.

I could not resist the bear photo: who better to tell the story of climate change pollution?

My good friend Frances Stewart who lives along the Yellowstone River in Montana – a river that could be harmed if crossed, as planned, by the Keystone XL pipeline.

One of many handmade signs.

My colleague Josh Mogerman of NRDC (left) tweeting about the protest.

A human-powered facsimile of the pipeline also encircled the White House.

The end of a long day of training in democratic action.

Relegating Grizzly bears to the national parks?

2011-12-07T22:40:49Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

What will it take to recover Yellowstone grizzlies? Well, most everyone agrees the main thing is to provide bears with access to secure habitat and food. Scientists and wildlife managers have also long agreed that there isn't enough of either inside the confines of Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks; bears need to be able to use lands outside the parks. For bears to thrive and truly recover, we will need to learn how to live with them in new places. This is especially true given that the location of high quality bear foods is changing as the climate changes; the climate-driven collapse of whitebark pine, once a key bear staple, is one factor that is prompting bears to forage more widely in the Greater Yellowstone.

Yet accommodating bears in different areas may be an uphill battle with some. Take this quote from a December 4, 2011 article in the Missoulian where Idaho Fish and Game Director Jim Unsworth said, “They (the public) won’t tolerate being afraid of having a bear on your elk when you’re hunting.” What he did not say was that the only places where elk hunting is not allowed in grizzly bear habitat is inside the parks. Relegating grizzly bears to the parks just won't work.

Such a drastic measure is also unnecessary because: 1. many hunters are hunting successfully in grizzly bear habitat and having no conflicts with bears, and 2. hunters can chose whether they want to hunt in grizzly bear habitat. There are plenty of places in the Northern Rockies to hunt big game where there are no grizzly bears.

I have personally spoken to a number of hunters who said they opt not to hunt in bear habitat because they don’t want the added worry – and that is fine because it is their choice. I have also reviewed the thousands of comments submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the Yellowstone grizzly bear delisting rule and related state plans. In these documents, I read the comments of many hunters who opposed premature delisting of Yellowstone’s grizzly bears, and those of a number of hunters who said they actually enjoyed the thrill of hunting in a place where grizzly bears still roam. Unsworth seems to think that many or most hunters are afraid of grizzly bears or of hunting in their midst -- and that is simply not the case.

If Unsworth’s stated desires were implemented in policy, it would mean that no grizzly bear population would ever be recovered, because there would only be bears protected inside the parks, and the numbers would be so small that they would always be imperiled under the terms of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The purpose of the ESA is to recover imperiled species. All the involved agencies, except now perhaps Idaho Fish and Game, have operated for decades under the assumption that in order to be recovered, grizzly bears need access to habitat outside national parks – which means they need to be able to forage in places where elk hunting is allowed. Idaho could help the current situation by expanding research on where bears are, especially on the periphery of the ecosystem, and by communicating that information to hunters, so they know whether or not they need to prepare for an encounter with a grizzly – or whether they might prefer to hunt where grizzly bears are not present. Simply shooting bears outside the parks is an approach that no one will support.

More misleading statements about grizzly bears by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2011-10-21T23:01:23Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

The October 2nd article in the Missoulian also contained another misleading statement by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Dr. Chris Servheen about public support for bear recovery.

Dr. Servheen said: “If we are blocked by the legal system, if conservation is not achievable, support for grizzly bear conservation will drop off.” The fact is that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)’s grizzly management efforts have been blocked by the legal system many times over the last several decades, when the agency could not justify its decisions using the best available science, and when its actions violated the Endangered Species Act—and public support has not dropped off. That is because the public expects FWS to follow the law and use the best available science to recover endangered species.

There have been at least 10 successful cases brought by conservationists against the federal government over the past 25 years – cases that improved conditions on the ground for the bear -- and public support for the grizzly bear has remained high.

FWS concedes that public support for recovery of the grizzly bear has increased and remains high in the August 2011, Five Year Review of the Status of the Grizzly Bear in the lower-48 states. In this document, nowhere does FWS suggest that public support is somehow contingent on what has happened or what may happen in the courts.

On page 95 of this review, FWS concluded: “overall we have seen an improvement in public perceptions and attitudes towards grizzly bears in the last several decades. The same government that once financially supported active extermination of the bear now uses its resources to protect the great symbol of American wildness. This change in government policy and practice is a product of changing public attitudes about the grizzly bear. Although attitudes about grizzlies vary geographically and demographically, there has been a widespread increase in positive attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its conservation, even among traditional conflict related communities like the ranching industry.”

Dr. Servheen has provided not one shred of evidence to defend his claim that public support for the grizzly bear will drop off if FWS’s management decisions are blocked by legal action, and if Yellowstone grizzly bears are kept on the endangered species list as a result of actions by the courts. This may well be because legal actions have been generally aimed to provide the bear with more protection than what the agencies would have otherwise granted -- and the public supports more precautionary and protective measures. The public expects the agency to use the best science and to follow the law, which in the case of the ESA means to give the benefit of the doubt to the species where there are issues of uncertainty.

Dr. Servheen’s statement also unjustly disparages the judiciary. Our democratic system relies on a balance between the judiciary, the executive branch and Congress: all branches of government are important, not just the executive branch that houses FWS. If the government oversteps its bounds, citizens representing the broader public interest can and should enforce the terms of laws like the Endangered Species Act. In fact, litigation has been one of the key ingredients that promoted progress towards grizzly recovery and many other species.

Successful citizen suits substantially improved grizzly management and conservation over the last two decades, and the public was supportive of these improvements. One classic example is the 1992 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, which defined grizzly recovery as only a numerical population target, ignoring the fact that habitat loss was one of the key threats that landed the grizzly bear in the lower-48 states on the endangered species list in 1975. Successful litigation by conservationists prompted the FWS to revise the plan to include habitat protection targets—a step that boosted the grizzly recovery program significantly. These changes were made with no negative response from the public.

The public has repeatedly demonstrated that it understands that bears need special care and the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to activities that might harm them. People understand too that in the case of the Yellowstone grizzly, the world the bear lives in has recently been turned upside down by climate change—and the related loss of a key food, whitebark pine, is having major impacts on the population. The public understands that things are changing rapidly for bears, and agrees adopting a precautionary approach is a sound one. FWS should listen more closely to what the public has actually been saying in asking for more protections for bears.

It's getting old: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service undermines the public trust regarding grizzly bears, again

2011-10-18T16:25:50Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

In an October 2nd article in the Missoulian, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Dr. Chris Servheen made several statements that undermined the broader public interest in grizzly bears, and were misleading about the role of environmentalists in conserving grizzly bears and the level of public support for bear recovery.

Servheen is quoted as saying that “It’s the people who live and work and recreate on bear habitat that bears need, not environmental groups and their supporters.” But anyone who read the administrative record on the Yellowstone grizzly bear delisting case, or who attended any of the public meetings over the last several decades on grizzly bears would arrive at a very different conclusion. Most of the people who work and recreate in the grizzly bear country and most of the people who have commented on grizzly bear proposals in the Northern Rockies hold conservation-oriented values about grizzly bears, and are concerned about grizzly bear habitat.

Of the roughly 211,000 (out of a total of 212,000) comments that expressed opposition to premature removal of endangered species protections for Yellowstone grizzly bears, many of the voices were environmentalists—or people who expressed environmental values—including many thousands of people who live and recreate in grizzly bear habitat. Some excerpts are summarized below. The people who have had the most intimate experiences with grizzly bears are some of their biggest supporters – visitors and residents. The Great Bear’s best friends are often those who have had experience with them and the wilderness they depend on.

The FWS unfairly discounts the many years of dedication and active involvement in grizzly bear conservation by thousands of people who may or may not call themselves “environmentalists”, but who time and again express support for grizzly bears and their habitat. These voices are legitimate expressions of public concern, and they should be counted fairly by the agency in charge of grizzly recovery and protecting the public trust.

It is long past time for grizzly bear managers to reconsider their relationship with the public and the duty to protect the broader public trust, rather than narrow special interests. Discounting large portions of the public who have been raising legitimate concerns for decades, and who are dedicated to the future of a healthy grizzly bear population, undermines civil society. And such behavior ultimately does a disservice to the cause of preserving the grizzly bear, one of the greatest icons of wilderness that we have left.

Excerpts of what residents and visitors in grizzly country said about Yellowstone grizzly delisting in letters to Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS):

Following are excerpts of comments from residents and visitors to grizzly bear country to FWS. Over 99% of the comments received by FWS opposed delisting of grizzlies in Yellowstone, and supported ongoing legal protections. These came from comments submitted to FWS on the delisting proposal in 2006.

“The federal government stubbornly persists in its efforts to remove Yellowstone grizzlies from the ESA…[m]eanwhile, practices and trends that have long been accepted as environmentally destructive continue to build in full force. Without a change in governmental perception of natural resources and the needs of animal populations, a delisting measure will effectively exterminate the grizzlies of Yellowstone.” Lindsay D., Bozeman, MT

Dr Servheen, now is not the time to delist grizzlies. I think the decision is a political and not based upon sound science. By delisting grizzly bears at this time, you would not only be betraying the bears, you would be betraying sound science.” Charles R., Bozeman, MT

I have been very interested in the great grizzly bear ever since I first saw them in Yellowstone National Park back in the 1930s when I was a young boy growing up in Billings and Helena, Montana. And in my life time I have worked on the trails in Yellowstone and later was a Park Ranger Naturalist and a tour guide in the park, and had the great privilege of working with the Craighead brothers in the Hayden Valley in Yellowstone, with the grizzly bear, and some time with the black bear also….I do not want them to be delisted and put in the hands of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho as they will then be hunted, killed, and no on will give a damn about them or their numbers. They need to stay on the endangered list and be taken care of.” Ralph R., Greybull, WY.

“I strongly oppose the plan to delist the grizzly bear. There are not enough grizzlies. They do not breed fast enough to ensure a viable population. I have lived on my ranch on the Wood River outside of Meeteetse for more than 30 years. In the beginning there were no grizzlies. I have seen three bears in the last ten years. They are coming back, but very slowly….Every time I see one, it is a great thrill. The sightings make me glad to live in Wyoming. Do not allow these magnificent animals to be hunted. We need more grizzly bears. They are the spirit of the wild and the free. They are what makes Wyoming a unique and exceptional place to live.” Charles R., Meeteetse, WY

“As an old native of Montana, I now appreciate the values of the bears and wildlife during my stay at my grandfather’s homestead. We were taught to fear, enjoy and respect the bears on our land with the lords blessing to live together…You have those that are hell bent on getting rid of all wildlife and those that want to use it for their own selfish way of life. These aren’t more animals just more people and less land. Think of the west-wildlife are what it is.” Virginia E., Sheridan, WY

“It is too early to delist (maybe someday”). I have lived in Dubois for 50 years and watched this process with cautious optimism, then joy, now alarm.” Cynthia B., Dubois, WY

“We can’t even imagine the suggestion that the grizzly should be delisted from the Endangered Species Act of 1975.” D B and Marcia B.,Troy, MT.

“Delisting the grizzly bears of Yellowstone is a bad idea. This is a population that has begun to recovery from earlier assaults and poor management decisions, but it is not secure. It is an island population that will, unless given access to other grizzlies beyond this ecosystem, eventually die out.” James P/, Yellowstone Park

“Delisting is simply not an option; the human-caused deaths of many grizzlies each year is reason enough to keep existing regulations in place.” Lee S., Bozeman, MT

“We have worked so long and so hard to reach these modest numbers. The poachers, railroads, cars, poisonings, and mistakes by hunters certainly keep the grizzly numbers in check, as it is. What a success story we have. Let us continue to protect, and when the numbers are large for an area, if that should happen, move this magnificent animal to other areas where the gene pool may be enhanced…I am a life-long Montanan, not a bleeding heart transplant to the state who has never seen a live animal. I believe it is our human obligation to share the planet, and to be good stewards, rather than to ravage it in the name of greed, ignorance and arrogance.” Jill M., Absarokee, MT

“…Last but not least are the dramatic changes which are occurring across grizzly country. One needs only to look at the area between Yellowstone Park and Cody to see how human encroachment has affected the bears. If your agency doesn’t think that the financially heavy hitters who have property there don’t have influence in Wyoming political decisions I’d like to drink what you are drinking. There is a long time saying in Butte, USA—“money talks and BS walks”. If the persistent effort of the present administration to sell off attractive chunks of federal land succeeds in the Cody to Yellowstone situation will only worsen…I’m a life- long resident of Montana and in my 72 years I’ve seen so many negative changes occur that I’m truly concerned that the Montana that I love is in a death spiral. We can’t risk a mistake in managing the grizzly bear that would put the Great Bear, a Montana icon, at risk.” Ed B., Gardiner, MT

“After 67 years of living in Cody, Wy. Area, and being a life long big game hunter I am trying to justify delisting the grizzly. I volunteer now with the Wapiti District, Shoshone Natl Forest, just east of Yellowstone. I am in the field 7 days a week and looking for bears. I have not seen enough bears to make me feel like delisting is warranted. I doubt you folks know the mouthwatering frenzy you have created by making your announcement to delist the bear. Every outfitter in the area is already calling hunters booking hunts, and the Wyo. G and Fish is counting their money. As one grandfather of hunters I say very strongly—you people are out of your minds, do not delist the bear.” Danny S., Cody, WY

Of Wolves and Wolf Hunting Season: It's True, and It's Tragic

2011-10-04T21:20:55Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Yes, the wolf hunting season has begun in Montana and Idaho—a tragic outcome that we at NRDC worked so hard to forestall. We and our dedicated Activists and Members threw our all into a campaign over the past six years to ensure the recovery of wolves. With roughly 1,650 wolves in the region based on the last official count, we were approaching a sustainable recovery—at least 2,000 wolves in connected ecosystems—before wolves suffered a bitter defeat when Congress stripped them of federal protections last spring.

But that does not mean that the battle is “over.” When it comes to protecting large carnivores, the battle is never over. It is won and lost, animal by animal, day by day, season by season, community by community. We suffered a setback, yes, but there are many chapters in the wolf recovery story that have yet to be written.

There is hope in this view because it means that we get a second chance to redefine the playing field for carnivores and people. Wolves are here to stay in the Northern Rockies—even their most serious opponents agree to that fact. So it’s up to us to look again at our complex relationship with this important top carnivore.

First, it is essential for us to learn from our recent experience and apply those lessons to ensure that the removal of species from federal ESA protections is done appropriately. Congress is not equipped to deal with this issue—something that was clear when the Endangered Species Act was passed, since one of the main points of the law is to take the politics out of these decisions. The decisions should be left in the hands of agencies with scientific expertise and many years of experience in recovery of endangered species, not the whims of politicians under fire from special interests.

Second, NRDC and others are redoubling efforts to reduce wolf-livestock conflicts, the single biggest cause of wolf mortalities to date. Interestingly, the ranchers that I’ve been talking to this summer are not convinced that the hunt is going to help reduce wolf-livestock conflicts because of where wolf hunters are likely to go—more in the backcountry than the places where livestock are grazed at this time of year—and the reality that the indiscriminate hunting of wolves can disrupt the social structure of wolf packs and may actually lead to more conflicts. Many livestock operators I’ve spoken with feel that there is more that we can do collaboratively to reduce wolf conflicts using the many tools that are now available—guard dogs, better husbandry practices, fladry (i.e., flagging strung along electrified fence-lines).

Third, we at NRDC are expanding our work on wolf protection efforts in the Pacific Northwest, where ample habitat for wolves still remains and where wolves are finding new homes. There is a great opportunity here to bolster wolf recovery efforts in the lower-48 states, and expand upon what we’ve been able to accomplish so far in the Northern Rockies.

We also plan to submit comments and generate comments from our wonderful Members and Activists when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiates a process to approve another weak Wyoming wolf plan. Wyoming is important because it has the lionshare of the wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. This process should start in the next month or so. It appears that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has largely reversed its former position that it was opposed to the Wyoming wolf plan, and now seems poised to designate most of the state as a “free-fire” wolf killing zone. We will be taking a close look at that plan in yet another attempt to keep Wyoming from getting away with murder on wolves in most of the state.

We’ve also been working on ways to support efforts to raise sustainable cattle, which, if successful, would mean that ranchers would protect wolves and other carnivores as the normal part of their operations, while at the same time minimizing the use of antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals, and maximizing the protections of watersheds, soils, grasslands and biodiversity.

So while it is easy to feel despair in the short-term as the wolf hunting seasons begin—and we are already grieving for the roughly three dozen wolves that have been killed so far—there are more hopeful prospects in the longer term. The challenge is to figure out how to work together in a problem-oriented way to reduce wolf conflicts and increase the chance that we and wolves can coexist.

While the fall cools and the flanks of the mountains here turn yellow and red, we are keeping our sights on Montana and Idaho as the hunts get underway (and it should be noted here that Montana’s doing a much better job when it comes to wolves than Idaho). If we can’t postpone the hunt, at least we can bear witness, honor the dead, and let politicians know how we feel—which is disturbed and dismayed that the states are willing to reverse the enormous progress made to date for wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies.

At NRDC, we are in this fight for the long haul. We, like wolves, are not going away, and we will continue to defend their important role in maintaining the health of this magnificent ecosystem.

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Numbers: How Relevant Are They?

2011-09-23T22:02:49Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

The question of the relevance of Yellowstone grizzly numbers and trends came into question during the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing in March on the appeal of the District Court ruling that returned Yellowstone grizzly bears to the list of endangered species in 2009. Wrapping up his oral argument, the federal attorney said: “let me address the extra record materials relied on by the Coalition. First of all, anything that has happened after March of 2007 isn’t relevant to this case. This court’s job is to assess whether the Service [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] made an arbitrary and capricious determination based on the record that was before the agency at the time the agency made this decision. So anything that happens after March 2007 is not relevant to this case.”

Honorable Susan Graber: “So do you agree that the last line of your reply brief is not relevant also”?

Federal attorney: “That’s right. We only included that data to rebut the notion that mortality has skyrocketed and it hasn’t--”

Honorable Sid Thomas: “That’s probably not the best way to end. Thank you counsel.”

To understand the importance of this exchange, you need a little background. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition’s attorney, Douglas Honnold of Earthjustice, presented information on the serious threats to bears posed by whitebark pine loss, which had increased in severity since the 2007 delisting decision. He also described the excessive levels of grizzly bear mortalities that occurred in 2008 and 2010.

During the oral argument, the government attorney said that this information was irrelevant, as these events occurred after 2007 when the Fish and Wildlife Service issued its delisting rule, and when the record was considered “complete” by the agency.

To recap, Judge Graber then asked about whether or not the last sentence of the federal government’s reply brief was irrelevant. Here are the last two sentences of that reply brief to provide needed context for her question: “If this court considers extra record materials (which it should not) it should also consider the data showing the Yellowstone area grizzly bear population has continued to increase at about 4-8% per year, each year, since the 2006 delisting decision, including in 2008, the year to which the Coalition refers. The current grizzly bear population is estimated to be about 600 animals.”

At the end of oral argument, the federal attorney agreed with the Judge that this last statement wasn’t relevant.

What is amazing about this admission is that it gets to a main pillar of the government’s case for delisting—the numbers and trends of grizzly bears. If these numbers are irrelevant, as the federal government conceded they were—and habitat is threatened and regulatory mechanisms are inadequate, then how can Fish and Wildlife Service justify delisting?

Since 2007, according to Interagency Grizzly Bear annual reports, the growth rate has slowed considerably—and even a decrease in the population is possible, within the wide range of uncertainty that is inherent in the current methods used to count bears. This may become an issue of great relevance to all those concerned about the future of the grizzly bear in one of its last strongholds in the lower-48 states. If we had reached some kind of tipping point—perhaps at the very time when grizzlies were delisted—and grizzly bear numbers are now decreasing, then endangered species protections are justified more than ever. And instead of continuing to deny the major changes that have altered bear habitat for the foreseeable future, we should redouble efforts to reduce human-caused mortality and to protect their habitat.

The federal attorney’s concession may not have been the “best way to end” the government’s day in court, but it did reveal something important about the federal government’s approach in this case to bear numbers: they are relevant when useful to argue for delisting, and irrelevant when they are not.

Whitebark Pine Citizen Scientists: In Their Own Words

2011-09-19T22:55:17Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Following are excerpts of interviews with some of our whitebark pine and grizzly bear citizen scientists over the last three years. Given the enthusiastic response I got when I read these out during a presentation last week at the Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation, I thought that you might enjoy them too.

The Beginning of our Citizen Science Work: Whitebark Pine Training Program, Dubois, WYoming, 2008. The players:

Upper left: Dr. Jesse Logan, whitebark pine/mountain pine beetle expert and the spiritual/scientific godfather of our citizen science work.

Center: John Gookin, curriculum director for the National Outdoor Leadership School, based in Lander, Wyoming who helped launch citizen science work on whitebark pine in 2008.

Right: Robert Hoskins, ex-Marine and naturalist extraordinaire, in the proud tradition of Olaus and Adolph Murie. Robert has provided keen insights and early warnings of ecological change in the southern Absaroka Mountains.

Right: Dr. Gaby Chavarria, former science director of NRDC, who helped make the whitebark pine citizen science work possible.

Left: Louisa Willcox, yes, that’s me.

Forrest McCarthy, Jackson Wyoming, Master outdoorsman and GIS computer whiz, who helped us make our system of collecting whitebark pine data possible in 2009.

Citizen Scientists in their own words

The work that I’ve been able to do on whitebark pine has been a game-changer for me—it’s impossible not to see the immediacy and reality of what is occurring to whitebark pine. To fly-over forests that were green a few years ago, and to watch them turn red and then grey—well, it’s like a cancer on the forest, spreading so quickly. It’s so powerful visually. This work has been a wake-up call, a jolt, an exclamation point about climate change. If I were in charge, I would hedge my bets, and do what we need to do to protect this amazing landscape that we are blessed to live in.

The other thing that I’ve really been impressed with is the dedication, intellect, imagination and fortitude of the citizen scientists I work with, who volunteered their time collecting data and writing about the findings that were necessary to convince politicians and people that something major is happening and we need to do something about it.

This whitebark pine work is one of the best pieces of evidence that climate change is actually happening. The fact that the change happened so fast and effected iconic species like the grizzly is mind-boggling.

I needed to do something in real wilderness while providing some service to the world. I was looking for an experience where I would learn a lot. At the first citizen science conference in Dubois, I got trained and went out with inspiring people like Jesse Logan and Wally MacFarlane and learned a ton. It was incredible to travel through the Yellowstone Ecosystem with Jesse—a premiere scientist—and experience through him the red, dead trees everywhere we went—Avalanche Peak, where everything was dead, and Clark’s nutcrackers and squirrels were vacant.

It was important for me to experience climate change viscerally and personally in an area I got to know and went back to year after year. I saw forests that had been around for about 1,000 years old, but everything, everything, the entire canopy was wiped out in the space of about three years. We were able to document this with Round River students. I used this data to study for my Master’s thesis. This was a direct result of the citizen science work I’ve done over the last several years.

It’s a scary thing, and humbling watching ecosystems slowly being snuffed out and the environmental impact that we have caused. It makes me wonder what to do with my life. I’m not giving up. I’ll work on these issues until I die, but it’s scary.

Whitebark pine and citizen science has profoundly affected my academic and personal life. Through the lens on science, I developed a sense of place in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and a sense of climate change as it is occurring in a place. Growing up in New York, you don’t see climate change, but when I went to the Wind Rivers year after year, hiking the same trails, going to the same stand of trees, I began to see the changes there. I saw the red spreading. It is impossible to not to feel something. The impact of the human footprint is affecting even the most remote ecosystem. There is no pretending. We humans have touched every place.

One time, we stood in a grove of trees and we could hear the beetles actually chew the trees. Everyone stopped. Then we kept finding what we thought to be green trees, and looking closer, we saw that beetles had found them already. It makes you feel like you’re part of the battle. If you find a green healthy tree, it’s a victory.

The research we have been doing allows you to connect your emotions to a sense of place and a commitment to do something about it. In my personal case, I’m combating the impacts of climate change by taking what I’ve learned in the field and working on the policy arena, and reaching out to people and connecting them to what is going on out on the ground.

I started into this work because I began noticing all of these old trees were dying. And then I met Wally MacFarlane and Willie Kern and saw the pictures they were taking from the air in 2009 and it was mind-blowing. And I wanted to make a short film, and that turned out to be an effort to protect the whitebark pine trees that are left through the application of verbenone, (a pheromone that tells beetles that the tree is already occupied). The whole idea has taken over my life despite the fact that the situation is depressing and possibly futile.

With TreeFight I’ve been involved in a long-term experiment to see if verbenone works and deters beetles from trees. We’ve seen some positive results. For example, last year we found that only five trees died that were verbenoned out of a total of 600 that we protected with verbenone. How well this works in the long-term is a question mark. While it seems reassuring, we may just be buying time for a particular grove of trees. Buying time, when time is probably running out. But we did get over 100 people out in the field this year, and I know we have raised a lot of public awareness, much more than when we started.

I do see how this work connects people to the forest, but it’s another step to try to get people to change their lives. How do you flip the switch so that we can save ourselves from what appears to be an ignominious end?

It’s so hard to watch these trees turn red. It’s like the trees are screaming at you “bright red”, delivering their final blood-curdling shout to the world, saying that what’s happening to me is what is going to happen to you, because we are all on the same line as these trees. We are all on the same thermometer.

I’m focusing now more on kids, eighth graders and middle school kids. They do care. And when you show them what the beetles are doing, they lower their heads and they kick the ground. It has a big impact. They know that this is what they are going to have to deal with. They absorb this material like sponges. While the adults are in denial and too wrapped up in what they are doing, the kids are different.

This work has given me a new purpose and it’s ruined my life at the same time.

Started in January of this year, Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation is dedicated to improving the accessibility of scientific knowledge through partnerships between adventure athletes and scientists.

In my expeditions in the backcountry, I consistently had a selfish feeling. I felt like I needed to do more by way of public service. I shared my feelings among fellow hikers, and there were other people who felt the same way that we wanted to give back if we had the tools. We’ve got some now.

In terms of our citizen science work this summer on grizzly bears and whitebark pine, we’ve gotten a great response very quickly. There is a lot of excitement, and people have been really inspired by getting out in the field and seeing grizzly bear habitat on the ground. As with any controversial issue, it is important to get public support. To do that, you need people to be hands-on and see an area, learn about an issue, and then getting engaged in the policy arena.

I also see there’s an opportunity to help scientists, and help them save a lot of money. The interest in our work is exploding.

As soon as I found out about this citizen science work, I was blown away and immediately wanted to get involved. On this weekend’s trip we got many more samples than I expected. And hiking through a whitebark pine forest will never be the same again for me. This kind of work gets you in touch with nature, and even if you are not seeing bear sign, you are paying close attention and realizing that everything is connected.

It’s interesting in these sorts of groups that everyone has a special skill. There are the good hikers, those who know plants and those who know animal sign. You need a diversity of skill when you’re doing these kinds of experiments. And there is always something to be learned no matter how skilled you are.

Pilot Jane Pargiter of Ecoflight took the above picture of the Angle Lakes area on the Bridger Teton National Forest in Wyoming in 2007. This photo became the “poster child” of the “sea of red”, a full blown outbreak of mountain pine beetle in whitebark pine. It is still being used in the Landscape Assessment System to systematically evaluate the condition of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

I think the most meaningful reason why I have been so passionate about the whitebark pine is because of the symbiotic relationship of the whitebark pine, ground squirrels, the Clark nutcracker and of course our wonderful Grizzly bear. This is nature at its most miraculous and is just so incredibly efficient; It is beneficial for all species involved. For EcoFlight to be able to try to help sustain this miracle of life for our children and grandchildren and the legacy of all creatures in the USA is very important. It also means so much on a spiritual and heart level, keeping the essence of our wild places and creatures wild.

New Grizzly Legislation: The Department of Redundancy Department

2011-09-14T23:05:48Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

I’m still scratching my head over the announcement this morning that Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Congressman Raul Labrador are introducing legislation to amend the Endangered Species Act to permit actions carried out against grizzly bears in self-defense situations. I’m bemused, because already the Endangered Species Act provides for such self-defense kills, and such legislation is redundant and completely unnecessary. Of all the many things that could and should be done to reduce human-bear conflicts, thereby keeping bears and people safe, this bill is not among them.

The Endangered Species Act already allows self-defense killing of grizzly bears. In the Yellowstone ecosystem alone, over the last decade more than 60 grizzly bears were killed in self-defense situations. And just last week, a grizzly bear was killed in self-defense by a bow hunter in the Gravelly Mountains west of Yellowstone. These are unfortunate incidences, but ones that are proper and lawful. In these cases, the Endangered Species Act has been proven to work exactly as intended. If the law isn’t broken, why fix it?

If these congressmen were seriously bent on reducing human-bear conflicts, keeping people safe and recovering a threatened species, they would help ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies on the ground have the resources that they need to prevent grizzlies from becoming habituated to human-foods and garbage, which can create dangerous situations for people and bears alike. They would provide more funds for the Forest Service to bear-proof campgrounds, build food-storage boxes, and erect poles in the backcountry to hang game meat away from the reach of hungry grizzlies. They would help fund more efforts to educate the recreating public as to how they can hike or ride through grizzly bear country without conflict. In sum, Congress could increase funding for the many tried and true techniques that have been developed over the years to avoid grizzly-human conflicts.

What we don’t need is new, redundant legislation. What we do need are more resources to implement the Endangered Species Act so as to protect both people and bears.

Court drama on safety net for Yellowstone grizzly bears

2011-08-25T17:26:53Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Left to right: Earthjustice attorneys Sean Helle, Jenny Harbine and Douglas Honnold at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The March 2011 oral argument on the 9th Circuit Appeal of Judge Molloy’s ruling that relisted Yellowstone grizzly bears included a fascinating exchange between the federal attorney defending delisting and the panel of judges on a key question: is there an adequate safety net to protect bears if they are delisted? Put another way, did the delisting rule and other laws build in systems that would respond quickly enough to problems that may appear after federal protections are removed? In the course of the hearing, several judges expressed concerns about over-harvest of grizzly bears by hunting—not surprising, given what has been going on with wolf hunting seasons in Idaho and Montana.

It turns out that this was a key issue raised by over 200,000 commenters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the delisting rule. Over 99% of the commenters opposed the rule, and most mentioned the lack of trigger mechanisms to respond to problems should they arise. Two years later, here is what the judges had to say on the topic, and the federal government’s response.

Honorable Sid Thomas: “so let’s assume that the three states allow, and they intend to allow, hunting at some point. If they [Fish and Wildlife] Service decides that hunting has been excessive, I assume that the only remedy is through formal petition for relisting, and that’s the only option that the federal government has. Or am I wrong on that?”

Federal Attorney Allen Brabender: “If the species is threatened as a result of the amount of hunting, then yes. The remedy would be to relist the population. That is correct your honor.”

Honorable Richard Tallman: “How does the Memorandum of Agreement [between grizzly management agencies] play into Judge Thomas’ question?”

Allen Brabender: “Through the agreements that the states have promised to follow, the mortality limits and population standards in the strategy. And among other things, what the strategy does, is that it’s an agreement to manage the population at no less than 500 bears--”

Honorable Richard Tallman: “I guess the question I’m wrestling with here, as I understand the argument on the other side, would be that if the various monitoring mechanisms show that the population of bears is being dramatically reduced above acceptable mortality levels through hunting, what remedy is there to, in essence, get the states to stop issuing bear hunting permits?”

Allen Brabender: “well the states have promised to follow the mortality limits--”

Honorable Susan Graber: “that’s not the question though, if they don’t--”

Allen Brabender: “if they don’t, the remedy is to relist the population.”

Honorable Sid Thomas: “and how long does that take typically?”

Allen Brabender: “well your honor, it can be done on an emergency basis and--”

Honorable Sid Thomas: “No, but I said typically.”

Allen Brabender: “uh, well it takes, I think that there is a deadline of 6 months or something--”

Honorable Sid Thomas: “And you start with scientific evidence and a petition and then…”

Allen Brabender: “right, yes, you have to follow the formal notice and comment and rule-making procedures and it takes--”

Honorable Sid Thomas: “a couple of years at least, I would say normally, wouldn’t it?”

Allen Brabender: “I think it was a 6 month limit, but maybe it does sometimes take more than that, your honor.”

As someone who has been asking a lot of these same questions that the judges were for many years, I was particularly interested in this exchange.

In the delisting rule, Fish and Wildlife Service relied on a handshake agreement with the states and other agencies to abide by mortality limits—limits that have been breached in 2008 and 2010. According to this agreement, called the Conservation Strategy, If the states violate its terms, then the only recourse that the Fish Wildlife Service has is to relist the population—a tall order politically, and one that is likely to take many months, as Judge Thomas indicated, if not years. In fact, some 34 species had to wait so long for FWS to respond that they went extinct while on the waiting list (See Susan D. Daggett, NGOs as Lawmakers, Watchdogs, Whistle-blowers, and Private Attorneys General, 13 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y 99, 110-11 (2002)).

The fact that there has been little response by agencies to the violation of mortality standards in 2008 and 2010 gives us little reassurance that a truly adaptive management strategy is in place to deal with the deteriorating habitat conditions that Yellowstone’s bears face. With what is happening with whitebark pine, the time to respond is upon us. Grizzlies are increasingly at risk. Human-caused mortalities have been mounting in the wake of the collapse of whitebark pine.

A logical response to this situation would be to redouble efforts to prevent human-caused mortality, placing priority on places in the periphery where bears are showing up. Some managers in the BLM and Forest Service have been moving in this direction, such as in the Gravellies. Others have been slower: and with ever-increasing budget constraints, securing needed resources to bear proof campgrounds and educate the public about safety in bear country is becoming more difficult.

Another sensible response would be to provide bears access to additional suitable habitat, which still exists in the Wind River, Palisades, Wyoming and Salt River Ranges and Beartooths. Unfortunately, much of this habitat occurs in Wyoming, a state that has been reluctant to expand the places where bears can go.

And overall, there seems to be little political will to move forward with these common-sense solutions. That’s why litigation can be important. That’s why too an independent judiciary can be valuable to ask the hard questions that often don’t get asked in the self-referential arenas that management agencies operate in.

Battle of the Little Bighorn, Bill Tallbull and Sacred Places

2011-08-11T20:20:37Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Monument at the Battle of the Little Bighorn

A couple of weeks ago, I was reminded of a now departed friend, a Northern Cheyenne medicine-man, Bill Tallbull, as I walked on a hot day through yellowing slopes where the Battle of the Little Big Horn was fought in Northern Wyoming. On these seemingly innocent sage-grassland hills, cut by the cottonwood-laced Little Big Horn River, Cheyenne, Lakota and Arapaho forces overwhelmed the 7th Calvary on June 25th, 1876. They killed Lieutenant George Armstrong Custer and about 260 troops, along with their Crow and Arikara scouts. It was this same year that the nation celebrated its 100th birthday of independence from England and the same year when the telephone was invented. A year later Crazy Horse, one of the leaders in the battle, would be murdered by General George Crook’s men at Crow Agency. And, four years later, another major Chief involved in the battle, Sitting Bull, would surrender to U.S. troops and settle down on the Standing Rock Indian reservation in South Dakota—later becoming a spectacle in Wild Bill Cody’s Wild West Show, earning $50 a week.

But at the time, the Battle of the Little Big Horn was the 3rd major running success of Cheyenne and Sioux forces against the U.S. government in their efforts to hold onto their traditional ways of life and their homeland, which was being overrun by prospectors and settlers, in violation of the Fort Laramie treaty of 1868. The native people were on a tear in 1876, and Custer greatly underestimated their numbers and the depth of their motivation when he reached the Little Bighorn.

Weeping Wall at the site of the Battle of the Little Bighorn

Much has changed since the last time I had been here last at the battlefield, perhaps 20 years ago. Small red granite gravestones had been added to mark the spots where Cheyenne, Lakota and Arapaho braves fell.

And a “weeping wall” had been constructed, with quotes from Cheyenne, Lakota, Crow and Arikara involved in the battle. Some of the red granite markers lay just feet away from the top of the small hill where Custer and his troops shot their last bullets: Lakota and Cheyenne had rushed the hill from all sides, some dying almost in the lap of the Custer defilement.

The sign on the “Last Stand” hilltop said that Custer and him men killed some 40 horses, which they used as human shields. A petite, 12-year old horse lover, Savanna, walked beside me and inhaled as she read this sign. “They killed their horses”, she repeated under her breath. At that age, I was perhaps as horse-crazed as she was.

Savanna and Mia...my horse-loving compadres

It was an unthinkable act to kill one’s horse—in this case, they were horses that you had ridden hard, for months, horses that were trusted and revered. I remembered my favorite pony and horse, who knew all of my personal secrets—teenage secrets that my best friends didn’t know.

But back to Bill Tallbull. I was reminded of him in the cool, dark National Park Service auditorium that day, when I heard a quote from his ancestor, Chief Tall Bull, in a film about the battle. His descendent Bill Tallbull was stout, with a serious face, but a light twinkle in his eye. He had been raised by his grandparents who had both somehow survived the Sand Creek massacre of 1864—a bloody slaughter in Colorado of innocent Cheyenne and Arapaho. From them, Tallbull came to learn the old ways, eventually becoming a medicine man of great stature. He was also a professor, author, historian and ethnobotonist who taught me a great deal about plants and history from the Native American perspective. He was the first Native American ever serve on the Advisory of Historic Preservation, a national panel committed to protecting historic landmarks across the country. He was instrumental in the formation of the Native American Grave Protection Repatriation Act. He was a veteran of World War 2, committed to peace, justice and freedom for all Americans.

When you were with Bill, you knew you were in the presence of someone of great power and integrity—someone who you would never forget.

I had met Bill Tallbull while working on a “common cause” many years ago. As someone who was reputed to know about how to make the Forest Service’s path difficult, I had been invited by several tribes to fight a timber sale and a visitor center proposed by the agency near a sacred site, the Bighorn Medicine Wheel. For centuries, and even until the present day, the Big Horn Medicine Wheel has been used by many tribes for fasting, vision quests and other ceremonies. It is perched at 10,000 feet, on the top of Wyoming’s Bighorn Mountains, with stunning views across the Bighorn Basin to the Absarokas to the west. The structure is a circle, about 20 yards in diameter, with 25 spokes extending from the center to the rim. Astronomers have found that some of the cairns and spokes are aligned with the summer solstice sunrise and sunset. Outside the circle is a fence, with many small bits of colored material, feathers, plastic flowers and other offerings by native and other peoples.

Bighorn Medicine Wheel

Bill Tallbull enlisted my help in a battle that proved successful against the U.S. Forest Service. I was in my 20’s, and had no idea before this time about the power of native medicine against the government. What I saw after a few years or work was a victory of spiritual power over political power; those who wanted a visitor’s center or to cut timber were left wondering why they had originally suggested such crazy ideas.

At one point during the campaign, Bill took me to the wheel in the early summer, just as some young Lakota braves were coming off of a vision quest, dazed and cold after four days of no food and water, with a foot of snow on the ground. I was stunned: here was a clear example of this place being used in present times for the same sacred purposes it had been used for hundreds of years ago. The braves’ altered state of mind was palpable. They had no idea I was there. I felt honored to be an accomplice in an effort to fight on their behalf against the U.S. government’s ill-conceived development proposals for this sacred place.

During the course of the campaign a coalition of over 11 tribes was formed, started in large measure by Bill Tallbull. Called the Medicine Wheel Alliance, the coalition included medicine men and senior leaders of great stature. The government proved to be no match for this kind of force. The Forest Service ultimately allowed the tribes co-manage a 40,000 acre site around the Medicine Wheel on the Bighorn National Forest, conceding that no development should occur on that sacred site without permission of the tribes. This is the largest site, I know of, where co-management with tribes has been allowed on public lands.

When I visited the Medicine Wheel years later, Bill Tallbull had been dead for years, but there was a young Native American there, interpreting the site for visitors. At the site of the Battle of the Little Big Horn, there were also Native American interpreters there to give us the perspectives of bribes involved in the battle, and remind us of the terrible toll that our European ancestors inflicted on native peoples throughout the West.

Tallbull once told me that all over the Medicine Mountain and other sacred places in the West, native people see the rock and animals spirits move from one place to another. They see the tree spirits and they see the plant spirits. He told me that they had been taught to see these spirits when they were young children, and their elders were taught by their elders. The knowledge is passed on and it is part of us, he said. White people are not taught in this way, he said. “No wonder we see the spirits and whites don’t.”

I wasn’t taught as Bill Tallbull was, and that day visiting the Battle of the Little Big Horn, I didn’t see any spirits either. But I felt a weight and a strange feeling on the back of my neck as I looked at all of the red and white gravestones, scattered on the Reno-Benteen battlefield, Calhoun Hill and Greasy Grass Ridge, where Custer was killed.

Following is a prayer from the late Bill Tall bull, spoken at Fort Phil Kearney in 1987, site of a successful Cheyenne and Lakota attack on U.S. troops in Wyoming in 1866. He could have spoken it at the site of the Little Bighorn.

The distant words of memory return to touch upon the battle that was fought here. The memories stir with the thought of that long ago past with the battle cries and the sound of guns of two nations at war. But the sound of wars have long been silent. The important lessons of learning to accept the fact of existing side by side as two nations has become a way of life. But today, I choose not to return to the wars of the past. In prayer, I search for a better way in which my people, the Northern Cheyenne, and all native Americans can accept the life of today with-out losing the spirit of their Indian heritage. I humble myself before our Creator, the Power of all Creation and ask a blessing for the good of life to be present today and in the future. In prayer, I look to the future with hope that the children who have yet to walk upon this land of freedom might also experience the touching of the earth with the same understanding and knowledge we share today. Finally, I gather all the spoken and the many unspoken concerns of the heart. I beg the sacred Grandfathers to give us their special blessings so that our Creator will give us a new dawn of hope and that the goodness of life will be our constant companion in our pursuit of justice, happiness and freedom for all Americans.

Fort Phil Kearney, May 31, 1987.

ESA: a failure if species aren't delisted?

2011-08-05T22:27:22Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

On March 7, 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case, Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. State of Wyoming, case number 09-36100, involving the 2009 decision by Judge Donald Molloy to restore endangered species protections for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Key reasons for relisting included the threats to whitebark pine, a key grizzly bear food source, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms to manage the grizzly bear should federal protections be removed.

On the issue of regulatory mechanisms, the federal government’s attorney said to the 9th Circuit panel: “the requirement of judicially enforceable standards and regulations before endangered species may be delisted is to set an impossibly hard standard that will never likely be met. And because success in the Endangered Species Act is measured by removals, this would assure that the Act would be deemed a failure.”

What? Did I hear that right? I went back and listened to the audio recording several more times before I’d been satisfied that the quote was correct.

One does not have to be an expert on the ESA to know that the purpose of the Act is not removals of species from the endangered species list per se, but recovery of imperiled species. And the Act has proven to be enormously successful in reversing declines in species numbers and improving their prospects. Approximately 93% of the species on the list are stabilized and or improving, due to the medicine and tender loving care offered by the Endangered Species Act. Key ingredients to the improvement of the status of endangered species under the protection of the ESA include the application of the precautionary principle, the requirement to use the best available science in decision-making, and the prohibition against killing or harassing endangered species.

In the case of Yellowstone’s grizzly bears, the ESA has been vital to maintaining a population that was nearing extinction by the mid 1970s. After listing, the government cleaned up the massive garbage problems in Yellowstone Park, which reduced the habituation of bears to human foods—a pattern that often leads to grizzly deaths. The Forest Service negotiated with sheep growers to move domestic sheep out of the core grizzly habitat, thereby removing another source of grizzly conflict and bear mortality. Hundreds of miles of roads were closed on public lands to improve the security of key bear habitat. And the grizzly population grew from perhaps as few as 200 bears to somewhere between 400 and 600 animals today. So, by any reckoning, the Yellowstone grizzly bear story is an ESA success.

The fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) places such great emphasis on “removals”, rather than continued survival or growth of protected populations, is testimony to a decade’s long political siege against the agency by development interests that seek to exploit habitat used by imperiled species. Sadly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) understanding of its mission has been twisted and subverted after years of hardball political pressure, especially when it comes to species that use a lot of habitat, like grizzly bears and wolves. The agency charged with implementing the act has increasingly internalized what its opponents have been saying: that the ESA is a failure if species’ legal protections aren’t removed.

The FWS has been, in great measure, captured by the development interests that it is charged with regulating. (There is an exception, of course for species that don’t take up a lot of space, or are not contentious, like whitebark pine.) This pattern is not unlike the domination of another Department of Interior agency, Mineral Management Service, by the oil industry prior to the BP’s disastrous spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Like other agencies, FWS is prone to self censor what is says and does because of what it fears Congress might do to its programs; what the Act requires and what is in the service of the broader public interest can be of lesser concern.

That is why conservationists have had to take their concerns to the courts to save species and the ecosystems they depend on. It is why too, that litigation brought by conservationists has been, in general, very successful. The delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bear is a classic example. The agency ignored overwhelming evidence that the bear’s key food was in deep trouble, and it failed to ensure that mechanisms were in place to maintain a healthy population after delisting. The federal attorney’s argument that FWS could not delist species if it had to have legally binding standards in place is yet another reminder that FWS does not want to have to do its job under the ESA, and that the role of watchdog groups is vitally important.

What FWS needs, now more than ever, is protection against political intervention by development interests. It needs too, a refresher course on its mission: to protect and restore imperiled species and the ecosystems they depend on. And it needs new, young people who are not hardened by decades of tough-minded political pressure, but who believe that the purpose of government is to protect the public interest and those that have no votes or voice in Congress.

Twisted Sisters: of Whitebark Pine and Macbeth

2011-07-29T23:52:49Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Upon reading last week’s finding by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that whitebark pine is so threatened it warrants endangered species protections, somehow I found myself reflecting on the witches in Macbeth. Three witches kick off Shakespeare’s epic tragedy, with prophesies of the bloody rise and fall of general, then king, Macbeth. The witches have been compared to the three fates of Greek tragedy, who together spin the thread of each human’s life—and cut it at the end.

Thinking about whitebark pine, it seemed to me that the three witches in this context are white pine blisterrust, mountain pine beetles and climate change. Just like the witches in Macbeth, these forces work together to cook up a brew that is even more deadly than what each could do on her own. (Remember their famous line: “Double, double toil and trouble…”—which Shakespeare apparently lifted from an actual witch curse of his day.)

Although the FWS finding doesn’t read like Shakespeare, it is worth reading nonetheless. It’s a good, plain prose too, not rife with jargon and scientese; and it summarizes an amazing amount of important information on whitebark pine and its threats. Following is a short recap. I will number the witches listed below, as Shakespeare did his.

Witch #1. White pine blisterrust is a deadly invasive disease that was introduced into the U.S. from Eurasia over 100 years ago, when it tagged along on imported wood. Blisterrust results in the mortality of an overwhelming majority of infected trees, and all age classes of trees are susceptible. Blisterrust kills trees within an average of 20 years after infection, according to one recent study. Infestation rates are increasing, and the disease is now found throughout almost the entire range of whitebark pine, including the northern tip of the tree’s range in Canada. If climate conditions become wetter, infestation rates will further escalate. Currently, colder, drier areas of the range that originally were thought to be less susceptible to the disease are now showing considerable rates of infection. Observing the trends in blisterrust, Forest Service expert Bob Keane is quoted in the FWS finding saying: “While whitebark pine will continue to persist on the landscape, these forests may become functionally extinct.”

Witch #2. Climate change is expected to significantly decrease the prospect of survival of whitebark pine throughout its range. One Forest Service model, referenced in the FWS finding, shows that by the end of the century, only 3% of whitebark pine is anticipated to remain on the landscape in the U.S. (The U.S. which constitutes half of the tree’s range; the rest of the tree’s range is in Canada.) The whitebark pine has little ability to adapt to climate change, given its long, 60-year interval between generation. The ability of these trees to migrate north is also very limited because the current and anticipated rate of climate change is too great—unfortunately, trees can’t walk, like the Ents of the Lord of the Rings. The ability of the tree to migrate to the north is further limited by, blisterrust, (Witch # 1) which is found at the northern end of the tree’s range.

Witch #3. Mountain pine beetles: Due to warming temperatures and drier conditions brought on by climate change (Witch #2), mountain pine beetles have been able to flourish in whitebark pine at unprecedented levels, in areas previously thought to be “immune” from beetles. Mountain pine beetles have killed millions of acres of whitebark pine in what was previously thought to be inhospitable habitat. There is no way to stop beetle epidemics once they have started: epidemics typically subside when the availability of host trees is exhausted—i.e., when beetles have eaten all trees larger than roughly 6 inches in diameter. The numbers of whitebark pine hit by beetles continues to increase range-wide. Mountain pine beetles attacks are facilitated by blisterrust (Witch #1 and Witch #2), which weakens whitebark pine, making them more vulnerable to beetles (Witch #3).

These witches work together to drive a dynamic that is pushing whitebark pine to the very brink of ecological extinction.

To quote from the FWS document:

…”The interaction between white pine blisterrust and mountain pine beetle further intensifies the impact of both threats. White pine blisterrust and mountain pine beetle are impacting whitebark pine equally in both Canada and the U.S. portion of the range. In other words, there is currently no refuge from these threats. There is no way to control or reduce or eliminate either threat at this time, particularly at the landscape level needed to effectively conserve these species.” (Bold added)

That’s FWS’ way of saying that the fates are, together, cutting the thread of life of whitebark pine, a tree that is vital to the high elevation ecosystems where they live. It’s like the witches’ curse that has now become a deadly reality.

As the witches say at the beginning of Macbeth,

“When shall we three meet again?

In thunder, lightning or in rain?

When the hurly-burly’s done

When the battle is lost and won.”

For whitebark, the battle has been lost, in the short term anyway—and it is nothing short of a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions. The fact that we have “won” a “warranted but precluded” funding is a positive step, but it fails to stem the tide of this epic loss of a unique forest ecosystem.

At one point in Skakespeare’s play (called the “Scottish play” by thespians fearful of the Witches’ curse), one of the witches talks to Macbeth about “the deed that hath no name”. But the deed had a name. She was referring to his plans for the murder of a man, Macduff, who Macbeth considered a threat. Here, in the context of whitebark, the deed is ecological extinction, or murder, if you want to go that far. For it is we, humans, who killed this tree.

There is one significant difference between watching the play Macbeth at your local theater, and watching the current whitebark tragedy playing out in the real world. The blood is not on Macbeth’s or Lady Macbeth’s hands, it’s on ours. Because blisterrust would not be a problem, except that we humans accidently imported it to North America. And climate change and the related mountain pine beetle epidemic are the direct result of our use of fossil fuels. We may not be able to wash the blood off our hands—as Lady Macbeth could not, in her famous sleepwalking scene. But we should be able to make a commitment to turn the thermostat down, so that what’s left of these beleaguered forests have a fighting chance—along with the rest of us on this fragile planet.

What do whitebark pine and Missouri River trash have in common?

2011-07-15T21:34:45Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Answer: a new, cutting edge aerial technology to comprehensively assess problems.

In 2009, when NRDC, the US Forest Service, and pilot Bruce Gordon conducted the first-ever assessment of whitebark pine damage from an unprecedented outbreak of mountain pine beetles, we did not know that we were developing a method with big, important implications for conservation. The “Landscape Assessment System” method uses geoferenced photo points, shot along specific flight lines from an airplane, to identify and map of areas of concern. In the case of whitebark, this mapping effort gave us the first comprehensive view of whitebark pine loss: about 86% dead or seriously damaged in the Greater Yellowstone by subwatershed. Stunning stuff – and this was information that you simply could not get by hiking or other techniques such as remote sensing.

There has since been an explosion of interest in the LAS method, which has since been used to show the spaghetti mess of roads and gas rigs in Wyoming Upper Green River Basin. It is now being used to map stream side habitat that is especially important for wildlife.

And, earlier this summer, it was used to map trash piles along a 300-mile stretch of the Missouri River, to identify priority areas for clean up. You might not think that a airplane was necessary for this project, but trash piles up along the river in sometimes very remote places. For the last 10 years a volunteer group, Missouri River Relief has been trying to clean up the Big Muddy. In a typical 3 hour clean up, the group collects and then properly disposes 10 tons of trash, everything from plastic bottles to refrigerators.

As part of its 10th year anniversary celebration, the group is planning a big barge cleanup for September of this year. To help identify priority areas and access routes for trash collection, the group hired trusted pilot Bruce Gordon, and GIS whiz Wally Macfarlane, one of our “whitebark warriors”, who developed the LAS method. With members of the press and Missouri River Relief, Bruce and Wally flew from Olathe KS to St Louis, surveying and photographing trash sites, as well as non-mapped roads like ATV trails that could be used to access the more remote sites.

As a result of this work, the group is now better prepared to make its upcoming “Clean Sweep” barge cleanup from Kansas City to St Louis even more effective. The group hopes their efforts will lead to more recycling and more appreciation of the river.

Although it might not look like it at first blush, we and Missouri River Relief have a lot in common. We share a watershed system which we both value, as well as a new technology that has facilitated our work. We share too devoted experts and conservation veterans Bruce Gordon and Wally Macfarlane, who have strengthened our work immeasurably.

Of swans, wolves and bears: the challenge of ranching sustainably

2011-07-14T21:24:11Z

Louisa Willcox, Senior Wildlife Advocate, Livingston, Montana

Two trumpeter swans lifted skyward, white angelic wings beating slow and effortlessly over the meandering Red Rock River. It was a cool but clear early morning at the J Bar L Ranch, and I was drinking tea while looking out over the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, a stunningly beautiful and diverse wetland landscape in southwest Montana. I had been invited to participate in a tour of the ranch by the Western Sustainability Exchange, an organization that promotes sustainable agriculture in the Northern Rockies. I had known one of the main ranch hands through work on carnivore conservation; but I had never met the others, and I was curious about what was going on with a ranch that is situated in the best remaining ecological corridor between Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho’s Selway Bitterroot ecosystem.

For the next day and a half, I looked at a lot of grass, sagebrush and wildlife, kicked a lot of dirt, and wrestled with other tour participants over the question of what it means to ranch sustainably in a biologically rich landscape. These included other livestock producers and experts on range and wildlife management, as well as the neighbors --The Nature Conservancy and the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

The owner and staff of the J Bar L had been pursuing some recent dramatic changes in their management, which they wanted to share with others. They wanted to discuss the results they were seeing on the land and what they meant. It did not take an expert to know that some of their biggest changes were beneficial to both the environment and human health. First, they are now producing 100% grass-fed cows (read: no corn, unnecessary drugs, or hormones). With an abundance of grass available in winter on a lower elevation ranch near Twin Bridges, they have been able to eliminate their previous reliance on hay, which greatly reduces their energy consumption and carbon footprint. They are also not selling their cows to feedlots, many of which are horrible from the standpoint of chemical and hormone inputs to the cows, which in turn are not healthy for the people who consume them. Feedlots are also notorious causes of air and water pollution, as well as inhumane for the cows.

Photo courtesy of J Bar L Ranch

J Bar L’s program of frequently moving cows around the landscape means that there is a lot of grass, sagebrush, and other plant cover and forage left over for birds, foxes, coyotes, bobcats and other wildlife that use the area. In my brief time there, I saw coyotes, fox, three black bears, numerous moose, pronghorn, elk and an abundance of birds, including bald eagle, harrier, sandhill cranes, great blue heron, lesser scaup, coots, bluebirds and meadowlark. And I heard of a grizzly bear that they saw occasionally on a nearby mountain.

One of the things that struck me most from the discussions with ranch employees, Red Rock officials, Fish and Game staff, and the crew from Western Sustainability Exchange, was how much we all knew we were in a magical wild place, and that we all wanted to keep it that way. This was not what I expected. I had become accustomed to the old storyline, embraced tacitly or overtly by so many involved in agriculture and resource extraction, that people are meant to dominate and subdue the land. That the West is to be cultivated, safe, settled -- where wilderness and wild animals are a token sideshow, perhaps acceptable within National Parks, but not outside their borders. In my experience, this traditional storyline, the residue of the old myth of “manifest destiny”, runs so deep that many who espouse it don’t even recognize it. Throughout the West, the story is encoded in the DNA of many communities.

But in the last number of decades, the old storyline has come up against a newer one that, over time, has become more compelling. The core of the new story is that we, wildlife, and ecosystems are interdependent in profound ways, some that even scientists may not fully understand. That our history of eliminating thousands of bison, wolves, bears in the name of progress was, looking back now, wrong-headed. That it is long past due to replace the old story of dominance over nature with a new one that honors the earth and promotes coexistence with animals and each other.

What I found in discussions with the staff of J Bar L, The Nature Conservancy, and Western Sustainability Exchange, was that we shared versions of this new story, although we each expressed it differently. Looking at how the J Bar L ranch was being managed encouraged me. Maybe, just maybe, it is possible to live and ranch in such a way that leaves the landscape whole and healthy for the next generation, while giving room to bears and wolves and swans and more. We all seemed to be groping toward some vision of sustainability, even if we couldn’t necessarily agree on all of what that means. Indeed, there is a big debate in cattle country right now about what is sustainable, and what can be labeled as such. With big corporations such as Cargill and McDonalds in the fray, as well as smaller organic and grass-fed cattle producers, the debate promises to be a heated one, in which the smaller, more environmentally friendly operators will be at a significant disadvantage.

In this group anyway, there was a shared recognition that sustainability involves a shared vision of healthy people and healthy ecosystems. There was agreement too that we need to find new ways to work together to make sustainable practices an on-the-ground reality, rather than a pie in the sky fantasy. And J Bar L is undoubtedly on the cutting edge of sustainably raising beef cows in the region.

Photo courtesy of J Bar L Ranch

I was left with a head full of questions such as: What is difference quantitatively between operations like this and those that send their cows to big feedlots in the Midwest, in terms of energy, carbon footprint, water quality, human health, biodiversity? How replicable are efforts such as the J Bar L in other areas, even within the region? What difference is J Bar L making among their neighbors and the broader agricultural community in terms of setting an example of coexistence with carnivores and other wildlife? Is it possible to take a comprehensive view of costs and benefits (including non-consumptive values such as wildlife) for an operation like J Bar L, compared to others that rely more heavily on chemicals, feedlots, and pesticides?

As part of a sustainable beef project, NRDC will try to tackle some of these questions in the ensuing months. These are questions that I’m certainly going to be grappling with myself for quite some time, for these agricultural issues are enormously complex, not just for the producers, but for consumers and all of the people in between in our complicated food system. But for now, I am happy to relish the memories of the early morning liftoff of white, wild swans against the snowy backdrop of the Centennial Mountains.