Misconceptions and misunderstandings

I would like to address a few of the misconceptions and misunderstandings presented by Darrell Kerby in his letter of April 20.

First of all, Dr. Servheen’s fears of the “loss of 55 years of accumulated research” (as reported by the Idaho Capital Sun on April 17) was specific to reduced funding and retirements occurring on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, not the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). The Study Team is effectively the scientific research arm of the IGBC – receiving direction and partial funding from the greater Committee. The IGBC was formed in 1983 to coordinate “grizzly bear policy, planning, management, research and communication of state, provincial, tribal, and federal agencies,” and consists of high-ranking officials from Federal agencies (U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Park Service, and Geological Survey) and the heads of wildlife agencies from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Washington. The current chair of this “group of bureaucrats” is indeed our own head wildlife bureaucrat, Jim Fredericks (Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game) https://igbconline.org/.

Servheen is rightly concerned that the current rapid rate of premature retirements, forced resignations and potential firings of Federal employees is hastening the loss of “institutional knowledge” – the accumulated wisdom and experience of long-term employees that helps agencies fulfill their mission. Along with this loss and associated budget cuts, there appears to be no coherent plan for continuity so that agencies will properly function in the future.

Kerby badly misinterprets the existing research of human activities on grizzly bears. Open roads do indeed provide an avenue for direct mortality of grizzlies through shooting (accidental or malicious) – as has occurred here in Boundary County several times through the years. An additional (and well-documented) effect of motorized use is the potential loss of otherwise usable habitat due to grizzly bear avoidance of motorized routes.

It is true that bears may exhibit one of the three possible responses to vehicle activity because grizzly bears (much like people) have unique personalities and show a wide range of behavioral traits. However, studies have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of grizzlies will make an effort to avoid human contact. Grizzly bears that choose to remain in close proximity to human activity risk becoming acclimated to humans – often with tragic results. These bears eventually lose their natural fear of humans and ultimately come into conflict with them (the well-publicized story of Yellowstone bear 399 provides an excellent case study).

For Kerby to write that the range of possible reactions support the assertion that “human activity does not inherently disturb grizzlies” is akin to saying most people obey traffic laws, but some do not so therefore traffic laws are ineffective and unnecessary.

My main issue with Mr. Kerby’s letter is in the summary paragraph and specifically the statement that grizzly bear research has “reached maturity” and further research is unwarranted. I suspect most grizzly bear experts (and scientists in general) would disagree. A purpose of science is to constantly ask questions and build upon answers previously arrived at. It is a journey with no defined endpoint – only occasional stops along the way. To use another human example, imagine if research and experimentation had stopped with the advent of sulfa drugs – we would never know penicillin and the range of more effective antibiotics available today. A good scientist is aware of what he or she knows, but usually more acutely aware of what they don’t.

In my time working for the Forest Service, there were numerous questions regarding grizzly bear behavior that it would have been helpful to have answers to: Does the measured response of grizzlies to motorized routes currently differ from that of classic research due to changes in behavior or improved methods of data collection? And what are the potential population effects of concentrated non-motorized human use in grizzly habitat? It now appears unlikely that these questions will be answered in the foreseeable future.

As James Madison pointed out, men are not angels and hence the need for laws to regulate their behavior. Darrell can be commended for his faith in human nature, but over the course of a 25-year career I often witnessed the results of decidedly unangelic acts by National Forest users in Boundary County. While prejudice against native predators may sometimes be a factor, it does not explain random acts of vandalism or willful destruction of resources repeatedly occurring on public lands. The work of social scientists may help explain motivations behind such acts, but in my opinion will do little to prevent them.