The Works

Yellowstone's grizzly model worth copying (March 2006, Calgary Herald)

The Calgary Herald editorial applauding the provincial government’s “prudent” (if somewhat tardy) decision to suspend the spring grizzly bear hunt last week (“Prudence rules in grizzly decision,” March 5, 2006) is just the latest indication of wide-spread public support for grizzly bear conservation in Alberta. Unfortunately, it also is indicative of a misunderstanding about the status of Alberta’s “threatened” grizzly bear population and the means by which it can be successfully recovered.

As the Herald editorial recognizes, and as I have written in numerous magazine articles and opinion pieces, grizzly bear recovery in and around Yellowstone National Park is the best model for Alberta to follow. Indeed it is the only example in the world of actually beginning to recover a grizzly bear population in decline. Over the last 20 years, wildlife management officials have watched the population triple from about 200 animals to almost 600, and now they are debating whether to remove the Yellowstone grizzly from the threatened species list and re-open a hunting season on the Great Bear.

But this success has had very little to do with suspending the hunt or counting bears. No, the Yellowstone success story is based on limiting human activity in grizzly bear habitat. Just ask Dr. Charles Schwartz. He is one of two experts who the Alberta government has turned to for advice on their recovery efforts. Dr. Schwartz is the leader of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, which conducts research used in the recovery of the threatened grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The GYE, as it is known, is an area the size of Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay national parks combined. Half of it is protected as Yellowstone National Park and the other half is what we call “the working landscape.” Dr. Schwartz’s advice? Don’t put too much faith in the suspension of the hunt to give Alberta’s grizzlies a fresh start.

“‘Regulated hunting’ and ‘sustainable harvests’ are not the ‘cause’ of grizzly bear declines in Alberta,” he wrote in a recent review of Alberta’s draft grizzly bear recovery plan. “Closing hunting seasons gives the false impression to the public that all will be well for the bears if hunting is stopped. Hunting is in fact a very minor symptom of a much greater erosion of habitat by humans.”

According to Dr. Schwartz, it is not even necessary to know exactly how many grizzly bears there are everywhere in the province before meaningful recovery efforts begin. “Recovery was accomplished in Yellowstone,” he wrote in his comments, “with no [precise] information on population size.”

Don’t get me wrong. Suspending the hunt is an essential part of grizzly bear recovery in this province, not because we don’t know how many bears there are everywhere, but because we do know, based on the government’s own data, that in some places there are fewer than half the number that sparked the listing debate in the first place. And because we do know that grizzly bear habitat in Alberta is some of the most heavily developed in North America.

The key, as biologists have known for more than a decade, is not managing bears but managing people. In the GYE, this has meant maintaining what biologists call “habitat security” by limiting the amount of development in grizzly bear habitat, especially roads and cutlines that allow heavily armed men to drive four-wheel drive vehicles wherever they want to go. Dr. Schwarz defines “secure habitat” as “any [roadless] area 10 acres or larger [that is] 500 meters or more from a road.” Secure habitat, he says, is a key indication of survival.

We already know, based on studies done to date, that the amount of secure habitat in Alberta is perilously low. Consider: Secure habitat in the Yellowstone area averages 86 per cent. Secure habitat in Kananaskis Country, for example, is a measly 52 per cent. Obviously insufficient.

The government is quick to list its efforts to protect grizzlies in this province, but very few of these “actions” have done anything to stop the bleeding, either from the bears themselves or from the habitat on which they depend. As in caribou recovery efforts in this province, the habitat issue is one the government refuses to tackle, despite the fact it has been identified as the key factor in every one of its reports on grizzly bears in the last 16 years: the 1990 grizzly bear management plan, the 2002 status report, the draft recovery plan, even its own website. In fact, things have only become worse for bears while we sit around and argue about how many there are—or were.

Readers with an inherent trust in government may scoff at my cynicism, and ask, “Why would the government not do the right thing for grizzly bears?”
I think the reason is fairly simple: ideology. Like U.S. President George Bush’s policies on Iraq and climate change, and despite the Herald editorial board’s optimistic interpretation of the hunt announcement, the Alberta government’s recalcitrant stance on grizzly bear management is based not on “prudence” and the precautionary interpretation of “sound data.” It is based on the pre-conceived and immutable, if less than rational belief of its leaders, that nature cannot stand in the way of progress. And in Alberta, progress (at least so far) has meant lots and lots of roads and clearcuts and oil wells (tens of thousand every year, in fact) and very few areas managed for the habitat security grizzly bears will require if they are to survive in this province.

As every grizzly bear biologist knows, including the one that was fired by the provincial government for daring to speak of what he knew, this will mean developing, funding and implementing a recovery plan that is similar in scope and detail to the Yellowstone recovery plan that has proven so successful to date. Considering where we are, and how far we have to go, dozens of dedicated staff and millions of dollars will be required every year for decades to get the job done here, as it was in Yellowstone. (Even Ontario, with no grizzly bears and a large and healthy black bear population, spends millions of dollars each year to reduce human-bear conflicts.)

Inevitably, this will require Albertans to restrain some of our activities in grizzly bear habitat and to repair decades of damage that has been ignored for far too long. But in the long term, the investment will have been worth it, for as Andy Russell wrote more than 40 years ago, grizzly bears can teach us something of what it means to live with nature. Which is something we will be forced to learn, whether we like it or not.

Behind that grizzly curtain (September 2005, Globe and Mail)

More than a month ago, bear No. 66, a tolerant female grizzly with three cubs, was struck and killed on the Canadian Pacific Railway line in Banff National Park. At that time, experts gave her cubs almost no chance of survival. Three weeks later, two of the cubs were killed crossing the Trans-Canada Highway. Parks Canada officials quickly captured the third cub, which now resides in the Calgary Zoo.

The regular deaths of grizzly bears as a result of human activity are nothing new for Canada's flagship national park. During the past six years, 13 grizzlies have died or been removed from the population as a direct result of human activities. This toll leaves Parks Canada and the managers of Banff National Park in direct contravention of the park's management plan for the sixth year in a row.

This is bad news for Alberta's grizzly bear population, a sensitive and threatened species, but it is even more troubling for Canada's voting public, which continues to watch an arrogant federal government ignore its own regulations, policies and management plans for reasons only the bureaucrats and politicians in charge must know.

Banff National Park's management plan, which was approved by Parks Canada officials (and Parliament) in 1993, stipulates that human activities in the park must be managed in a way that will keep human-caused grizzly bear deaths below 1 per cent of the estimated population. With only 60 grizzlies in Banff National Park, that means fewer than 0.6 bears can be killed each year. This translates, really, into one bear every two years. But that legally binding threshold has been surpassed for the sixth consecutive year. On average, more than two grizzlies have been killed each year, more than 300 per cent higher than the management plan's target. In 2005 alone, the target has already been surpassed by 800 per cent.

The frequency and regularity with which grizzlies die in Banff National Park is a sure-fire indicator that Parks Canada is failing to maintain the park's ecological integrity, its primary mandate. As disappointing as that may sound, it may not be the problem that should bother Canadians the most.

What may be more important is the apparent indifference and lack of accountability exhibited by a federal government known to ignore issues that matter most to Western Canada. For six years, Parks Canada has done nothing meaningful to improve the way it manages Banff National Park to ensure that grizzly bear deaths are kept below the target it set 12 years ago. Yes, a 70-kilometre-an-hour speed limit was implemented for the Trans-Canada Highway through Lake Louise, but it is rarely obeyed and almost never enforced. Yes, a “strategic framework for the conservation of grizzly bears” was incorporated into the Banff management plan during a review in 2004. But neither of these facile actions have been effective at reducing the number of dead grizzlies. The statistics themselves bear this out.

Parks Canada's laissez-faire attitude toward our national parks and the wildlife they are meant to protect raises other questions: What other policies and standards is the federal government ignoring, policies and standards that might, perhaps, be more directly linked to the welfare of all Canadians? What about water quality standards, which can have disastrous consequences when ignored? What about air quality, health care, fiscal policy? Are these portfolios being managed with as little care and attention as our national parks?

The issue of grizzly bears in Banff National Park is about more than just charismatic critters and pretty scenery. It's about government accountability and good governance. Canadians deserve both, and should demand an explanation from Parks Canada about why it has failed to meet its own standards for so many years, and why it has done virtually nothing meaningful to address its failure to protect the ecological integrity of our national parks.

Then we should pull back the curtains and see what other negligence lurks in the federal government's dark and dusty closet.

The Perils of Ignoring Precaution (June 2005)

Isabelle Dubé may not have had much warning before she was killed by a young grizzly bear near Canmore, Alta., on Sunday (June 5, 2005). But decision-makers and bureaucrats had plenty of notice that such a tragedy would be increasingly likely if development were not carefully planned in Canada’s foremost mountain boom town.

Click here to read the rest of this op-ed, which appeared in the Globe and Mail.

A plan to avert tragedy (June 2005)

The headline in Tuesday’s Herald — Was the killer bear handled properly? — only hints at the complexity of factors that led to the tragic deaths of Isabelle Dube and Bear #99. The answer may rely less on handling bears than it does on handling people and human development.

Click here to read the rest of this op-ed, which appeared in the Calgary Herald.

A win-win future for the Flathead basin (October 2001, Calgary Herald)

There has been much discussion lately on the future of the Flathead Valley in southeast British Columbia. And so there should be -- this is one of the most important watersheds in all of North America, especially if you happen to be a grizzly bear.

According to a recent scientific study, the transboundary Flathead basin is one of a kind, a special place that deserves special attention.

This region is "unique in North America for its variety, completeness, and density of carnivores that are rare elsewhere, states Dr. John Weaver, a senior biologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society. Weaver's research discovered that 16 terrestrial carnivores -- wolves, wolverines, lynx, fisher, marten, and black and grizzly bears among them -- roam the Flathead Basin.

All of these species were present 200 years ago, when native guides helped Europeans such as Mackenzie, Thompson, and Lewis and Clark explore the West. It is both significant and remarkable, in this age of expansion and extinction, that not one of these carnivore species has since disappeared.

Of particular note is the importance of the Flathead basin as grizzly bear habitat. The Flathead grizzly exists in densities seen nowhere else in the interior of North America; only on the fecund West Coast can the landscape support so many grizzly bears in so small a place.

No other watershed in the lower 48 states, and very few in Canada's northern interior, can boast this kind of resilience. And yet there are threats. Science has shown that carnivores, especially grizzly bears, wolverine, lynx and marten, tend to fare poorly when confronted with too much of certain kinds of human activity. Outright habitat destruction is the main culprit, but increased road densities lead to an increasing number of dead animals, largely because of trigger-happy poachers and overzealous (and frequently armed) off-highway vehicle users.

Contrary to the Herald's simplistic stance, the future of the Flathead is not an "all-or-nothing" affair. This important watershed needs some form of protection in Canada (the Americans have already protected their half), but that needn't worry those who want to enjoy the area.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) and other conservation groups have long promoted parks as places where people can encounter and enjoy nature on nature's terms. Nowhere is this more evident than in Alberta's Rocky Mountain national parks. Waterton, Banff and Jasper all have more than enough development to accommodate even the most profligate visitor -- and they are national parks. In fact, Waterton, the least developed of the three, is so small that the few so-called "upgrades" it does boast have left people and critters alike with very little wilderness in which to roam. Which is all the more reason to somehow protect the ecological integrity of the Flathead Valley to the west.

This question of how to enjoy our wild places without destroying them is perhaps the most profound question facing conservation- minded Canadians in the 21st century (and there are many who feel this way, more than 90 per cent of us). We've done a pretty good job so far, but a decade of scientific research has shown us we must dig even deeper if we want to retain the biological wealth we rely on for recreational, economic and spiritual well-being. The so-called "proposal" that has surfaced for the Flathead suggests protecting as core habitat the eastern portion of the basin, abutting the border of Montana's Glacier National Park to the south and Waterton National Park to the east. It also means upgrading the local lumber mill so that local jobs and company profits will be unaffected.

This is a win-win situation. Weaver maintains protecting this area "would improve security . . . for several species of carnivores and contribute significantly to vital protection provided" by Waterton and Glacier national parks. Ecologically, it is a natural (and missing) piece to an internationally significant puzzle.

Economically, this is ground-breaking. Quebec-based Tembec Forest Products Ltd. recognizes the value of the Flathead as wilderness and is willing to broker a deal that would keep it this way -- without compromising local jobs and the profits Tembec owes its shareholders.

Second, a Canadian non-profit organization is offering to put its money where its mouth is by raising $10 million to ensure that local people will continue to earn a decent living at the Elko mill.

Even George Orwell couldn't have prophesied such a turn of events.

What about those, like myself, who still want to hunt and fish in the Flathead Valley? We can still do so -- west of the Flathead River.

East of the river, anyone with a mind for it can hike and camp and explore wilderness the likes of which exist nowhere else on the continent.

It is innovative solutions like this that will allow us to maintain the unique natural heritage and quality of life we all enjoy, both in the Flathead basin and in the larger Yellowstone to Yukon ecoregion, now and for generations to come.

Any work by Jeff Gailus is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License