It is possible to drive more than half the number of miles across the United States, never leave the Targhee National Forest, and not drive the same mile of road twice. The U.S. Forest Service did not build 2,000 miles of roads in the Targhee for Off Road Vehicles (ORVs). Nor were they built because the Forest Service wanted to disturb and displace every grizzly bear living in the Targhee National Forest—although that has been the result. Those roads were constructed because timber companies needed access to harvest timber, and they were willing to let the American Taxpayer pay for construction and subsequent maintenance of those roads. Don’t forget the degradation to streams, fisheries, and riparian habitat that may never be restored no matter how many dollars we spend. The devastation to the Targhee National Forest due to road building and logging can be clearly seen in aerial photographs and even from space. It is not a pretty sight, and the scars from road construction and clearcutting are certainly not limited to the Targhee.

All grizzly bears in the lower 48 states were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975. The original Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was approved on January 29, 1982—it was revised in 1993. Recovery plans for 4 ecosystems were included in the 1993 revision—Yellowstone, Northern Continental Divide, Selkirk, and Cabinet-Yaak. Recovery plan chapters were approved for the Bitterroot Ecosystem (1996) and the North Cascades (1997) and appended to the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. An introductory comment to the 1993 Plan states, "Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species."

Appendix B of the Recovery Plan is Road Management in Grizzly Bear Habitat. It includes the following, "The management of roads is the most powerful tool available to balance the needs of bears and all other wildlife with the activities of humans." Management of roads to protect grizzly bears and their habitat requires limiting total road densities and open road densities. Since so many thousands of miles of logging roads have been constructed over the years in grizzly bear habitat, closing and obliterating roads is required to bring any semblance of balance between "the needs of bears and all other wildlife with the activities of humans." Another telling statement from Appendix B—"In general, increased human access on open roads and continued human use of closed roads have overall detrimental effects on grizzly populations. Roads and road activity allow continued bear mortality risk, increase habituation of bears, and effectively decrease usable habitat."

A 1997 report based on 6 radio-collared grizzly bears—Grizzly Bear and Road Density Relationships in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones—states, "Total road density greater than 2 miles/square mile and open road density greater than 1 mile/mile² were used less than expected (avoided) and unroaded areas in both categories were used more than expected (preferred)." Studies of radio-collared grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone and the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone have shown similar results--grizzly bears avoid areas of high road density.

Today, grizzly bear populations have been reduced to a fraction of their former numbers in the lower forty-eight states—once estimated at more than 50,000. Approximately 1,000 grizzlies exist today in the lower forty-eight, occupying less than 2 percent of their former range. They are hanging on in isolated zones in parts of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Washington (and possibly in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado). The grizzly bears in each one of these areas are cut off from grizzlies in the other areas, and even within their own ecosystems, by roads and other human developments. Will there soon be no room left for the Great Bear? Or, will we preserve the remaining grizzly bear habitat and begin to reconnect landscapes with corridors to allow movement between ecosystems for grizzly bears and other wildlife?

Some believe the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is increasing—largely based on sightings in areas where they have not been seen in years. A more likely answer is: grizzlies are being displaced from their habitat by roads and other disturbances, and that is the reason they are being seen outside their former niche. During some years, important grizzly bear food sources (berries, whitebark pine nuts, moths, carrion, and others) may be in short supply or unavailable, causing them to search elsewhere for replacement food sources and frequently leading them to developed areas. In fact, there may be only a few more grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem today than when they were listed as threatened in 1975 under the Endangered Species Act. Even if the more liberal estimates of the current size of the Yellowstone population are accepted, that may not be a large enough population to sustain sufficient levels of genetic diversity to ensure their survival in the long-term—another argument for corridors to connected isolated grizzly bear populations.

The Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone encompasses some 9,500 square miles—approximately 3,500 square miles of the total area are within Yellowstone National Park. Outside the Park, the ecosystem includes Grand Teton National Park; portions of the Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, Targhee, Gallatin, Beaverhead, and Custer national forests; Bureau of Land Management lands; and State and private lands in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Although the Yellowstone Grizzlies are protected under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act throughout the recovery zone, they are not always welcomed when they wander into developed portions of the ecosystem. Most human-caused grizzly bear mortalities occur in the developed areas adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. Lowland areas within the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystem, historically important to the grizzlies for spring habitat in particular, have been appropriated for homes, resorts, ranches, roads, campgrounds, and other human developments. The rights of the grizzly bear have been effectively usurped. The developed areas adjacent to Yellowstone National Park are sometimes referred to as population sinks, or black holes—areas where grizzlies wander in but don’t come out, at least don’t come out alive.

Given the destruction and fragmentation of grizzly bear habitat that has taken place in the national forests surrounding Yellowstone National Park—caused by logging, road-building, mining, oil and gas development, grazing, and recreational pursuits—and the development of important lowland habitat—for homes, resorts, ranches, roads, campgrounds, and other human developments—the Yellowstone Grizzly is relegated to a fraction of the ecosystem. Development within the Park to accommodate millions of visitors must also be recognized as a contributor to the loss of habitat. Is this diminution of habitat a concern for the long-term existence of the Yellowstone Grizzly? Evidently not to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee—as indicated by their preparation to propose removal of the protections afforded the Yellowstone Grizzly under the Endangered Species Act.

Maybe a few more grizzly bears do exist today in the Yellowstone Ecosystem than when they were listed as threatened in 1975. Is that reason enough to declare that the population has recovered to a healthy status, that threats to their continued existence into the future no longer exist? In his report to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee dated 1995—Population Viability for Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos horribilis): A Critical Review—Mark Boyce says:

I question the usefulness of demographic measures of population growth for anticipating long-term viability of grizzly bear populations; viability cannot be anticipated without projecting future habitat for the species. Increases in population size will be temporary because increasing density-dependent mortality, documented through survival analysis, is projected to stabilize population size.

The argument by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee that the Yellowstone Grizzly can once again be listed as a threatened species, if warranted, must be questioned. When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was challenged in federal court to uplist the grizzly bears in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zones from threatened to endangered, United States District Judge Paul Friedman remanded the case to the Fish and Wildlife Service for further analysis. They came back with a decision that said, not warranted for the Selkirk population and warranted but precluded for the Cabinet-Yaak population. That means the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that the Cabinet-Yaak population should be uplisted to endangered, but they don’t have time to go through the process to make the change because of other priorities.

The decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service that reclassification of the Selkirk population from threatened to endangered was not warranted was challenged. Judge Friedman ruled on October 28, 1998, among other things, that the defendants’ decision on remand not to classify the Selkirk population of grizzly bears as endangered under the Endangered Species Act was "arbitrary and capricious because the defendants failed to explain sufficiently how they exercised their discretion with regard to the statutory listing factors and drew conclusions that cannot be supported by the record." The record now shows that at least three grizzly bears were killed in the Selkirks that were not included in the official human-caused grizzly bear mortality reports and should have been. Judge Friedman also said while the Fish and Wildlife Service may once again reassess the status of the Selkirk population on the "basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, a population of 26 to 36 grizzly bears seems to be endangered almost by definition." My question is this: If there are two grizzly bear populations that are in fact endangered, should their reclassification to that status not take priority over removing protection from a population whose destiny is very much uncertain?

The U.S. Forest Service deserves much of the blame for the destruction and fragmentation of prime grizzly bear habitat in all grizzly bear recovery zones. However, it should be recognized that many Forest Service employees have laid their jobs on the line to protect grizzly bears and their habitat. The abuse and intimidation that Forest Service biologists, and other federal workers, have endured at the hands of managers and politicians are well documented in Todd Wilkinson’s recent book—Science Under Siege-The Politicians’ War on Nature and Truth. Biological opinions (based on science) which predict negative impacts to wildlife and habitat—including threatened and endangered species—may conflict with plans for timber sales and other developments. Evidently, scientists were (are) often asked to rewrite their opinions to support the planned activity. If they refuse, another scientist, one more willing to pen an opinion supporting the project, might be assigned the task.

Decisions to close roads and restore habitat are always going to draw criticism and pressure from some members of the public. The Forest Service needs to know that they have a lot of support for closing many roads that should have never been built. It is obvious that some people don’t understand the benefits grizzly bears and other wildlife will enjoy from these closures. Others simply don’t care—they only know they are inconvenienced.

After so much taking, is closing a few miles of roads to afford grizzly bears a little of the habitat and security they need to survive really too much to ask? Even if it means that we may not be able to drive to our favorite fishing hole or trailhead or take our ORV over our favorite route, it is a small sacrifice. Our children and our grandchildren may someday look back and thank us and the U.S. Forest Service for saving the Great Bear.