Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Ecosystems

Return To: The American Grizzly Bear

Return To: Carnivora - Grizzly Bears

Extinction Is Forever

In the Selkirk Mountains of northeastern Washington and north Idaho there is a small population of grizzly bears.  An even smaller number of grizzlies inhabit the nearby Cabinet-Yaak area of western Montana and a small piece of north Idaho.  The mortality rate for these grizzlies is high.  How many bad mortality years can the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Grizzlies tolerate?

Thorofare Between Priest Lake and Upper Priest Lake, Idaho

We left our campsite near the head of Upper Priest Lake at 5:00 AM on an early June morning in 2001.   The water was calm and peaceful. The Thorofare was like canoeing in a dream.   The highlight of the trip was seeing this mother moose and and her two yearlings.

Selkirk and Cabinet Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones

In some locations, the two recovery areas are relatively close.  Yet, grizzlies are not known to move from one area to the other.   

On October 28, 1998, Judge Paul Friedman ruled for the second time in four years that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to take the necessary steps to provide protection for the Selkirk grizzly population.  The case started in 1992, when 16 conservation groups sought increased protections for the Selkirk grizzly bears.  The groups sought “endangered” status for the grizzlies under the Endangered Species Act, which is more comprehensive than their current “threatened” status.  Judge Friedman reconfirmed his 1995 ruling and found Fish and Wildlife continues to be arbitrary and capricious in its refusal to reclassify the Selkirk population.  In response to a related petition, Fish and Wildlife determined in 1993 that reclassification of the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear population was “warranted but precluded” (the agency did not pursue the reclassification on the grounds that this proposed listing decision was precluded by work on other species).

In the October 98 ruling Judge Friedman said, “While the agency remains the expert in this field, it appears on the basis of the scientific evidence presented that the Selkirk population is simply too small to justify the agency’s decision not to reclassify it as endangered...a population of 26 to 36 grizzly bears seems to be endangered almost by definition.”

On April 22, 1999, Fish and Wildlife issued a press release that included the following statement:  "Grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk recovery zone should be classified as endangered according to our most recent data, but they are already receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species," said Ralph Morgenweck, director for the Service's Mountain-Prairie region. "The Service has to focus its resources on other species that have been proposed for listing, such as the Canada lynx or mountain plover, or are being reviewed for possible listing, before we reclassify the grizzly bear." 

While the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzlies continue to receive less than the protection they deserve and need, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to focus their efforts on removing  protection from the Yellowstone grizzlies--in spite of the recognized threats to several key Yellowstone grizzly food sources. 

A formal listing as "endangered" for the   Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak populations under the Endangered Species Act would require that "critical habitat" be classified.  That would be habitat in need of protection to help prevent the bears from going extinct in those recovery zones.   

Comments are due Monday December 31 on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a Forest Plan Amendment to adopt new grizzly bear access management standards within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones Plans. The amendment will be adopted by the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle and Lolo National Forests.

Background: This amendment process is a result of a 1999 lawsuit brought by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies against the Kootenai (KNF) and Idaho Panhandle Forests (IPNF) for failure to amend their Forest Plans and consult with US FWS when adopting the "Interim Access Management Strategy for Grizzly Bears" (1998 Rule Set). The Forest Service requested and the Alliance negotiated a settlement agreement that requires the KNF and IPNF to amend their Forest Plans and adopt new grizzly bear access standards. The DEIS for the amendment was issued on November 14; comments are due December 31.

A final EIS on the Forest Plan amendment must be completed by 2/2002. The Lolo NF joined the Kootenai and the Idaho Panhandle Forests in the amendment process; the three Forests are combining their Plan amendments into one EIS.

According to the USFWS the grizzly populations are barely stable in the Selkirks and definitely declining in the Cabinet-Yaak. Both populations have been determined by the USFWS to be "warranted" for uplisting to Endangered status. Their long term survival is threatened due to the high mortality rate, lack of adequate secure "core" area and high densities of open and total roads in the Recovery Areas.

The DEIS concludes that there are only 4 "feasible" alternatives:

Alternative A - the No-action alternative (required by NEPA) would return grizzly bear management on these forests to pre-1998 Rule Set criteria, which would be existing Forest Plan standards which vary from Forest to Forest and do not incorporate any core or road density standards based on the latest scientific research.

Alternative B - the "Proposed Action" would adopt the 1998 Rule Set. The 1998 Rule Set is fatally flawed. It is not based on the best available science and will not protect or result in recovery of these tiny grizzly populations. It fails to set adequate standards for core and contains no standards that limit open or total road densities. It increases access for administrative use and allows a closed road to be opened for 30 days in Bear Management Units (BMUs) that achieve 55% core.

Alternative C - Habitat security/access standards would applied across all BMUs. The habitat security standards are: achieving 55% core per BMU, limiting Open Motorized Road Densities (OMRD) >1mile/square mile to 33% of each BMU and Total Motorized Road Densities (TMRD) >2 miles/square mile to 26% of each BMU, none of which are biologically defensible. This alternative would reduce core in the few BMUs where it exceeds 55%, to 55%.

These standards (55-33-26) were derived from a 1997 (unpublished) research paper by Wakkinen, Kasworm, "Grizzly bears and road density relationships in the CYE and SE", which became the criteria for core and road densities in the recent Amended Biological Opinion / Incidental Take Statement for the Panhandle Forest Plan. Wakkinen and Kasworm had data on only 4 females, one of whom was a sub-adult female. Their criteria, 55-33-26, were an average of the four female home ranges. Wakkinen.Kasworm is basically a copy-cat study of the Mace, Manley SF Flathead research which provided the basis for Amendment 19 on the Flathead NF. Amendment 19 requires a minimum of 68% core, standards for OMRD and TMRD are both 19%. The population was declining where the female home range data was collected that led to these criteria.

Alternative E - the "Preferred Alternative" would set habitat security/access standards for each individual BMU based on current conditions. Not all BMUs would be required to meet the 55% core, 33% OMRD, 26% TMRD standards. Core area would be reduced by 3-5% in the BMUs with > 55%; OMRD and TMRD would be increased by 3-6% in BMUs where road densities are lower than the 33%/26% standards.

Points to make in your comments: (Comments should address the adequacy of the DEIS and the merits of the alternatives discussed.)

It is important to let the Forest Service know that the public will not accept standards that fail to provide adequate security and protection of habitat for these bears and that the standards must be based on the best available science.

1. The 55% core, 33% OMRD, 26% TMRD standards are not biologically defensible. Scientific evidence indicates that in order to survive, grizzly bears require larger areas of secure core habitat that are permanent and cannot be shifted and that even lower densities of open and closed roads cause them to avoid preferred habitat.

2. Alternative E calls for a reduction in core and an increase in total and open road densities in some BMUs which will displace and cause harm to bears that may use these BMUs.

3. The DEIS fails to present an adequate scientific basis for concluding that Alternative E, or any other alternative, would lead to long term viability or recovery of the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bear populations.

4. Inadequate range of alternatives - DEIS lacks an alternative based on the best available science, as required by the ESA.

5. Preferred alternative E would increase secure core habitat by less than 1% in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. The criteria represent a minuscule improvement in security for these warranted for endangered populations.

6. The DEIS fails to consider ways to reduce grizzly bear mortalities due to black bear hunting. A large percent of grizzly bear mortalities are hunting related.

7. The DEIS fails to provide linkage corridors between the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Recovery Areas and other recovery zones. Grizzly bears are one of the most wide-ranging species in the N. Rockies. Corridors provide avenues for connectivity between populations for dispersal and genetic interchange, necessities for long term survival.

8. There is no scientific basis for the proposed levels of administrative use in any alternative.

Questions should be directed to Rob Carlin on the KNF 406-882-4451

Comments must be post-marked by December 31 at the latest.

Send your comments to:

Bob Casteneda, Forest Supervisor
Kootenai NF
1101 US Highway 2 West
Libby, MT 59923

* NOTE (12/9/01):  Here is a link to the Summary of the DEIS.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife states in their April 22, 1999 press release posted below:

"During the preparation of the new finding to determine whether the grizzly bear should be reclassified as endangered, Service biologists found new information indicating that grizzly bears in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak recovery zones move from one zone to the other. The connection of the two zones appears to occur within British Columbia, within 20 miles of the international boundary.

This information indicates that there is possibly a genetic link among grizzly bear populations in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak areas. With this new data, the Service decided to combine the two recovery zones into one zone that encompasses about 3,600 square miles of the 38,000 square miles of remaining grizzly bear habitat in the United States."

The key here is no genetic link between the Selkirks and Cabinet-Yaak has been proven.   I believe all but one of the grizzlies known to move from the Selkirks or the Yaak into Canada were killed (out of the 5 or 6 bears tracked).  Studies and models by independent researchers indicate threats to habitat on the Canadian side of the border will likely cut off any potential linkage through Canada of grizzlies between the Selkirks and the Cabinet-Yaak in the future.  Potential linkage zones in the U.S. exist but have not been thoroughly studied or created.  Again, the U.S. seems to be placing too much reliance on Canada to preserve border populations of grizzlies.  The Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak recovery zones remain separate and have not been formally designated as one, despite what the press release indicates.

Sincere efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, and the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee are needed to designate critical habitat in both recovery zones.  Each Bear Management Unit (BMU) is important.  Habitat is fragmented in such a manner that movement between BMUs within a recovery zone is often difficult for grizzlies and sometimes impossible.  Although movement of grizzlies between the two recovery zones may be a key to long-term survival, there has been no documentation of such linkage.   

Here is the Press Release:   

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MAKES NEW FINDING ON
CABINET-YAAK/SELKIRK POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS

April 22, 1999
Chris Servheen 406-243-4903
Sharon Rose 303-236-7917, x415

Based on an analysis of the status of the grizzly bear population in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk recovery zones of Idaho, Montana, and Washington, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that reclassifying the population from threatened to endangered is warranted but precluded by the need to protect other species.

The Service’s analysis, conducted in response to a U.S. District Court order, weighed the best scientific and commercial information available on past, present, and future threats faced by grizzly bears in the two recovery zones, which the Service is now combining into one zone.

Biologists concluded the population is in danger of extinction because it is small and threatened by habitat alteration and the cumulative impacts of recreation, timber harvest, mining, road construction and other human activities. In addition it is facing potential isolation by activities across the border in Canada.

However, following established policy, the Service decided not to dedicate its limited resources to reclassifying a species that is already protected under the Act when other unlisted species need protection.

Because of the large number of species needing protection under the Endangered Species Act, the Service uses a priority system to deal first with the species in the most serious need of protection. According to this listing guidance, the reclassification of already listed species, such as the grizzly bear, has a lower priority than processing proposed listings of new species to the threatened and endangered species list.

Since 1993, the Service has issued listing decisions on 19 species in its Mountain-Prairie Region. At the present time, 16 additional higher priority candidate species in this region need to be addressed, putting them ahead of any reclassifications.

"Grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk recovery zone should be classified as endangered according to our most recent data, but they are already receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species," said Ralph Morgenweck, director for the Service's Mountain-Prairie region. "The Service has to focus its resources on other species that have been proposed for listing, such as the Canada lynx or mountain plover, or are being reviewed for possible listing, before we reclassify the grizzly bear."

During the preparation of the new finding to determine whether the grizzly bear should be reclassified as endangered, Service biologists found new information indicating that grizzly bears in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak recovery zones move from one zone to the other. The connection of the two zones appears to occur within British Columbia, within 20 miles of the international boundary.

This information indicates that there is possibly a genetic link among grizzly bear populations in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak areas. With this new data, the Service decided to combine the two recovery zones into one zone that encompasses about 3,600 square miles of the 38,000 square miles of remaining grizzly bear habitat in the United States. Grizzly bears in the combined Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk recovery zone number less than 100 animals.

The Service still believes that movement of grizzly bears between any of the other recovery zones, which include Yellowstone, North Cascades, Northern Continental Divide, and the Bitterroot, does not occur.

Both the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak areas are unique ecological settings because they contain low elevation inland habitat for grizzlies. Significant portions of the recovery zone along the Yaak River and on the east side of the Selkirk Mountains occur in areas between 2,000 and 4,000 feet in elevation, with wet, dense forests dominated largely by cedar and hemlock. These habitat types are either limited or not present in the other recovery zones.

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) inhabited most of the western United States and were believed to number 50,000 individuals at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 1800s. Populations declined to less than 1,000 in the conterminous 48 states by the 1970s.

The Service's finding of "warranted but precluded" was a result of two petitions filed by the Fund for Animals, Inc. and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation in early 1991 that requested the Service to reclassify the grizzly bear from threatened to endangered in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk ecosystems. The petition from Fund for Animals also requested that the Service reclassify grizzly bears in the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems.

The Service issued a finding of "not warranted" for Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems, but found that there was substantial information to do a status review on the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk areas.

On February 12, 1993, the Service issued a "warranted but precluded" finding for the Cabinet-Yaak and a "not warranted" finding for the Selkirk ecosystem. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asked the Service for additional information and analysis on overuse, particularly trends of human-caused mortality, survival and reproductive rates in the Selkirk recovery zone. In March 1996, the Service responded to the court with supplementary information.

In June 1998, the Service again found the Cabinet-Yaak recovery zone to be "warranted but precluded" for reclassification. In October 1998, the court sent the Selkirk matter back to the Service. In January 1999, the Service requested additional time to respond to the court order.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries and 78 Ecological Services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

SUBJECT:   Press Release on Mortality of Grizzly Bear 106/352 in Yaak River

DATE:         23 June 1999
TO:            To Whom it may Concern
FROM:        Wayne Kasworm, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 475 Fish Hatchery Road,  Libby, MT  59923                     (406) 293-4161 ext 105   FAX (406) 293-6338

Grizzly bear 106 (DJ) was found dead in the 17 Mile drainage 15 miles north of Troy, Montana on June 10, 1999.  She and her two cubs of the year were apparently killed by another bear. The carcass was largely
consumed by the time biologists arrived at the site.  Investigation of the site with metal detectors and the remains by x-ray did not detect any human involvement in the death.  Based on telemetry locations, the mortality likely occurred during the first week of June.  There was an elk carcass at the site that may have attracted both bears.  Dark colored hair was found at the site to indicate the presence of another
bear.

Grizzly bear 106 had been monitored by radio telemetry since 1986 when she was first captured by the research program.  This monitoring was among the longest continuous efforts ever accomplished on a single female grizzly bear.    Her core home range encompassed much of the area surrounding Roderick, Clark, and Grizzly Mountains in the Yaak River drainage.  She was also tracked north to the international border and west into Idaho.  Since 1986 she produced 13 cubs including those killed in this incident.  This is a very high rate of reproduction since most grizzly bears produce only 2 cubs in a litter at 3 year intervals.  She accomplished this by keeping a few litters for only 1.5 years then breeding again.  Six of the 13 cubs are known or suspected to be dead. One female cub survived to adult status and has produced 2 litters of cubs since 1994.  Another female offspring is currently radio collared and expected to produce cubs next year.  Two additional female offspring turned 4-years-old this year.

Bear 106 was last captured on August 28, 1998.  She was in good condition and was estimated to weigh 325 pounds.  The fact that she produced a litter of 2 cubs during 1999 is also an indication that she was doing well.  Bears that do not obtain sufficient food during the summer typically do not produce cubs the following year.

Incidents of bears killing other bears are not common but have been documented in other areas.  One adult female from the South Fork of the Flathead River study was believed killed and fed upon by an adult male. A similar incident was documented in the Selkirk Mountains by a grizzly bear research effort.  Other incidents typically have involved adult males killing smaller bears.  One of bear 106's offspring was killed by another grizzly bear while caught in a trap set for research purposes in 1989 at a site less than 5 miles north of this mortality.

For further information contact Wayne Kasworm at (406) 293-4161 ext 105.

Harrison Lake

Click on image for larger view.

Federal Judge Speaks For the Selkirk Grizzly Bears When U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Will Not

Federal district court Judge Paul Friedman ruled for the second time in four years that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to take the necessary steps to provide protection for the Selkirk Grizzlies.  Here are the details released today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             October 30, 1998
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Doug Honnold, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, (406) 586-9699
John McCarthy, Idaho Conservation League, (208) 882-1010
Guy Bailey, Selkirk-Priest Basin Association, (208) 448-2971
Mark Solomon, The Lands Council, (208) 882-4087
Liz Sedler, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, (208) 263-5281

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FAILS TO PROTECT SELKIRK
GRIZZLY BEARS

Washington, D.C.  A federal judge ruled this week that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had failed to protect the critically endangered Selkirk grizzly bear population in the Selkirk Mountains of northern Idaho and northeastern Washington.    Once part of a contiguous population of more than
50,000 bears ranging from Mexico to Canada, the 26-36 bear Selkirk population now teeters on the brink of extinction.

Federal district court Judge Paul Friedman ruled for the second time in four years that FWS failed to take the necessary steps to provide protection for the Selkirk grizzly population.  The case started in 1992, when 16 conservation groups sought increased protections for the Selkirk grizzly bears.  The groups sought “endangered” status for the bears under the Endangered Species Act, which is more comprehensive than its current “threatened” status.                                                                                                                                                      Judge Friedman reconfirmed his 1995 ruling to find the wildlife service continues to be arbitrary and capricious in its refusal to reclassify the Selkirk population.

“While the agency remains the expert in this field, it appears on the basis of the scientific evidence presented that the Selkirk population is simply too small to justify the agency’s decision not to reclassify it as endangered...a population of 26 to 36 grizzly bears seems to be endangered almost by
definition,” Friedman wrote in his conclusion.

“Now, after forcing Judge Friedman to rule a second time on the same issues for their failure to protect Selkirk grizzly bears, it’s time for Fish and Wildlife Service to start protecting bears,” said Doug Honnold of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, the lead attorney on the case.

Judge Friedman again rejected the wildlife service’s continued claims that reclassification is not required.  The service defended its position with four claims: 1) the Selkirk population can withstand current rates of human-caused mortality; 2) current legal protections are adequate; 3) the small size of the population does not mean that it is endangered; and 4) Canadian habitat in adjacent British Columbia will sustain the Selkirk population.  Judge Friedman ruled that the wildlife service did not provide evidence to establish any of these claims, and his 1995 ruling required it to do so.

“After seven years of legal wrangling, our hope is the wildlife agency will drop this court fight and establish real habitat security for the bears,” said Jerry Pavia, president of the Idaho Conservation League, and resident of Bonners Ferry, Idaho, the closest city to the Selkirk grizzly bears.

“The Selkirk bears are important for our mountain ecosystem and for survival of this great animal of the West,” said Guy Bailey, executive director of the Selkirk-Priest Basin Association.

The ruling does not set specific management actions but requires further justification from the wildlife service if it continues to resist reclassification of the bears as endangered.  With a change to endangered status, critical habitat must be defined and protected, and human intrusion regulated to protect the bears.

“Again and again, we have to take our own government agencies to court to enforce our wildlife protection laws and to free the agencies from political manipulation,” said Mark Solomon, executive director of the Lands Council, formerly Inland Empire Public Lands Council.  “Let’s now do what’s right for the bears and the wild mountains they live in,” he added.

“The uplisting of the Selkirk grizzly bears to endangered is the sad outcome of Fish and Wildlife Service allowing the Forest Service to continue to degrade habitat and failing to provide security for the bears,” said Liz Sedler of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund filed the lawsuit on behalf of D.C. “Jasper” Carlton, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, David Hunt, Selkirk-Priest Basin Association, Idaho Conservation League, Inland Empire Public Lands Council, Greater Ecosystem Alliance, Jari Preston, Montana Ecosystems Defense Council,
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, American Wildlands, Predator Project, Great Bear Foundation, National Audubon Society, Montana Wilderness Association, Cabinet Resource Group, Native Ecosystems Council, and Sierra Club.

Death of a Grizzly Bear

I received the following message from an anonymous visitor to this website:

"Sadly, another grizzly was killed the first part of July this year.  The 3 year old male had once been into apple trees near Gardiner and later stopped off to eat sheep carcasses between Dillon and the Ruby Res.  He was killed for these actions as well as, apparently, there being no place for a 3 year old male bear anywhere in Montana.   Doesn't seem right. How long will it be before Montana is just like California?"

Another sad note to report--on August 11, 1998, a 3-year old male grizzly bear was shot and killed in northeastern Washington, just outside the officially designated boundary of the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.  There are a handful of grizzly bears hanging on the brink of extinction in the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Ecosystem--maybe 25.  Grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery zone fare no better.  Young grizzlies like the one killed in the Yellowstone Ecosystem and the one killed in the Selkirk Ecosystem must find a home when their mothers tell them it is time to make their own way.    Every road and every human development they encounter in their wanderings make that a very challenging task.

Human-caused mortality and destruction of habitat are the greatest threats to these grizzlies.  The threat of extinction is enhanced by the continued failure of the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee to take reasonable actions required to protect grizzly bears and their habitat in the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone and the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.

Here is the address if you want to write to the subcommittee:

Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee
Kootenai NF
1101 US Highway 2 West
Libby, MT 59923

Maybe the subcommittee can answer this: How long will it be before Washington and Idaho are just like California?

While the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak (Oh yes, include the North Cascades) grizzly bear populations wander into extinction, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are busying themselves with plans to prematurely remove protections now afforded under the Endangered Species Act to the Yellowstone Grizzlies.  Plans for delisting the grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem may not be far behind.

More on the subcommittee below.

Who Will Save The Selkirk Grizzlies?

In the Selkirk Mountains of northeastern Washington and northwestern Idaho there are an estimated 20-25 grizzly bears and maybe that many more across the border in British Columbia.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relies too much on Canada for successful Grizzly Bear Recovery of border populations.  Threats to grizzly bear habitat in southeastern British Columbia and the Eastern Slopes of Alberta from road-building, housing developments, industry, agriculture and resource extraction make reliance on Canadian grizzly bears to recover the American Grizzly Bear very short-sighted. 

The mortality rate for the Selkirk Grizzlies is high.  The Selkirk Ecosystem Management Report, December 1995--December 1996 states, "Human-caused mortalities still have the largest negative impact on the population.  Delisting criteria are not being met within the Selkirk ecosystem.  Management decisions must continue to focus on these issues to insure the continued existence and recovery of the Selkirk grizzly bear population."

How many bad mortality years can the Selkirk Grizzlies tolerate?  Road density and use and the proposed construction of an additional 60 miles of logging roads on private land and three miles of subsidized access road on National Forest land further threaten the Selkirk Grizzlies.

Pending lawsuits could force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to uplist the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Population to endangered.  Fish and Wildlife has agreed that the few grizzlies in the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone should be uplisted to endangered, but they don’t have time to do it.  Can the grizzlies of the Selkirks and the Cabinet-Yaak hold on until Fish and Wildlife has time for them?

* Note: I continue to attend meetings of the subcommittee, when possible.  Although the official minutes may not always provide great detail, they are an important record.  Minutes from recent meetings and other information are available on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) website.  Here is the link: SELKIRK/CABINET-YAAK ECOSYSTEM SUBCOMMITTEE.

NOTE:  The Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator's Office has numerous documents available.  Ask for a copy of The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and other reports on specific Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones.   Hundreds of studies have been conducted. Write to:

Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Main Hall, University of Montana
Missoula, Montana 59812
(406) 243-4903

Yaak River

Click on image for larger view.

Links To Pages On This Site

e-mail: fcoise49@hotmail.com