I think I like this guy...maybe a no-nonsense biologist?
http://www.missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_29879854-171f-11df-a271-001cc4c002e0.html
"
Guest column | Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:06 am | (4) Comments
Recently (Jan. 18) the Missoulian published an opinion by two forest entomologists, Diana Six and Jesse Logan, titled “Science backs need for Yellowstone grizzly protection.” The basis of their concern is the decline of whitebark pine due to mountain pine beetles. Their interpretation of grizzly bear biology is that bears will face “serious negative consequences” with the reduction or loss of whitebark pine.
Whitebark pine cones contain seeds eaten by grizzly bears. Whitebark trees do not produce cones every year and are not eaten by bears every year. Whitebark is declining in the Yellowstone ecosystem primarily due to mountain pine beetles. This is not a new issue. Whitebark has been declining for years. Whitebark decline and the potential impacts on grizzlies were considered in exhaustive detail using all available science before Yellowstone grizzlies were delisted in 2007.
Six and Logan state: “There is a strong correlation between bear mortality and bad cone crops because of increased human encounters at low elevations.” In fact, grizzly/human encounters and bear mortalities are primarily determined by grizzly and human population densities rather than whitebark pine cone production. Risk of mortality is not related to elevation, it is related to the security of habitats. Bears using less secure low elevation habitats on the edge of the ecosystem have higher mortality risk in both good and poor cone production years. As the population continues to grow, more bears use the low elevation edge of the ecosystem areas where mortality risk is higher.
Six and Logan state: “Studies have also found that when cone crops are low, bear populations decline due to increased mortality and lowered reproduction.” This statement is not true. Grizzly populations do not decline in years that cone crops are low. Whitebark pine cone production has varied since 1983 with 12 of these 27 years having little or no cone production in the ecosystem. During this same time period, the average rate of increase for the Yellowstone grizzlies has been 4 percent to 7 percent per year. The grizzly population continues to increase even as whitebark continues to decrease.
Six and Logan state: “In Miller’s assertion that Glacier National Park shows that bears can survive without whitebark he ignores the science that shows foods available to bears in these two very different ecosystems are different and that alternates available to bears in Glacier do not exist similarly in the GYE.” Here they attempt to portray the Yellowstone ecosystem as somehow lacking in alternative foods to whitebark pine cones. This statement is not supported by the scientific facts either. Whitebark pine seeds are just one of the many nutritious foods available to grizzlies in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Grizzly bears are not dependent upon whitebark pine cones for survival.
What about the issue of grizzlies needing “protection” instead of being delisted? Delisting does not eliminate protections for grizzlies or grizzly habitat. To delist Yellowstone grizzlies, state and federal agencies implemented a comprehensive adaptive management system for the bears. We annually monitor grizzly deaths, births, survival, distribution, movements, cause, location and times of death, bear body condition (percentage of fat), food habits, conflicts with humans, production of major foods and threats to major foods.
More than 10 percent of Yellowstone grizzlies wear active radio collars each year. We set conservative mortality limits with response triggers if these limits were exceeded. In the 9,200-square-mile core area where 85 percent of the grizzlies live we prohibited new road building, new site developments like campgrounds and new livestock allotments. We can emergency relist in a few weeks if necessary. We spent more than $3.4 million per year doing this after delisting in 2007. Does this sound like these bears and their habitat had no protection after delisting?
The bottom line is that the ongoing whitebark pine decline is not a dire crisis for Yellowstone grizzly bears. We have put in place intense monitoring systems and response mechanisms to allow management agencies to carefully manage the bears and their habitat. We have established strict habitat protections to assure them the space and security they need to survive. We have been very careful and deliberate. We have used the best available science in every decision to assure the future of these bears. We remain committed to their future.
Chris Servheen is a professional grizzly bear biologist who has been the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 29 years. He was also the leader of the interagency effort that lead to the recovery and delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bears."
http://www.missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_29879854-171f-11df-a271-001cc4c002e0.html
"
Guest column | Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:06 am | (4) Comments
Recently (Jan. 18) the Missoulian published an opinion by two forest entomologists, Diana Six and Jesse Logan, titled “Science backs need for Yellowstone grizzly protection.” The basis of their concern is the decline of whitebark pine due to mountain pine beetles. Their interpretation of grizzly bear biology is that bears will face “serious negative consequences” with the reduction or loss of whitebark pine.
Whitebark pine cones contain seeds eaten by grizzly bears. Whitebark trees do not produce cones every year and are not eaten by bears every year. Whitebark is declining in the Yellowstone ecosystem primarily due to mountain pine beetles. This is not a new issue. Whitebark has been declining for years. Whitebark decline and the potential impacts on grizzlies were considered in exhaustive detail using all available science before Yellowstone grizzlies were delisted in 2007.
Six and Logan state: “There is a strong correlation between bear mortality and bad cone crops because of increased human encounters at low elevations.” In fact, grizzly/human encounters and bear mortalities are primarily determined by grizzly and human population densities rather than whitebark pine cone production. Risk of mortality is not related to elevation, it is related to the security of habitats. Bears using less secure low elevation habitats on the edge of the ecosystem have higher mortality risk in both good and poor cone production years. As the population continues to grow, more bears use the low elevation edge of the ecosystem areas where mortality risk is higher.
Six and Logan state: “Studies have also found that when cone crops are low, bear populations decline due to increased mortality and lowered reproduction.” This statement is not true. Grizzly populations do not decline in years that cone crops are low. Whitebark pine cone production has varied since 1983 with 12 of these 27 years having little or no cone production in the ecosystem. During this same time period, the average rate of increase for the Yellowstone grizzlies has been 4 percent to 7 percent per year. The grizzly population continues to increase even as whitebark continues to decrease.
Six and Logan state: “In Miller’s assertion that Glacier National Park shows that bears can survive without whitebark he ignores the science that shows foods available to bears in these two very different ecosystems are different and that alternates available to bears in Glacier do not exist similarly in the GYE.” Here they attempt to portray the Yellowstone ecosystem as somehow lacking in alternative foods to whitebark pine cones. This statement is not supported by the scientific facts either. Whitebark pine seeds are just one of the many nutritious foods available to grizzlies in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Grizzly bears are not dependent upon whitebark pine cones for survival.
What about the issue of grizzlies needing “protection” instead of being delisted? Delisting does not eliminate protections for grizzlies or grizzly habitat. To delist Yellowstone grizzlies, state and federal agencies implemented a comprehensive adaptive management system for the bears. We annually monitor grizzly deaths, births, survival, distribution, movements, cause, location and times of death, bear body condition (percentage of fat), food habits, conflicts with humans, production of major foods and threats to major foods.
More than 10 percent of Yellowstone grizzlies wear active radio collars each year. We set conservative mortality limits with response triggers if these limits were exceeded. In the 9,200-square-mile core area where 85 percent of the grizzlies live we prohibited new road building, new site developments like campgrounds and new livestock allotments. We can emergency relist in a few weeks if necessary. We spent more than $3.4 million per year doing this after delisting in 2007. Does this sound like these bears and their habitat had no protection after delisting?
The bottom line is that the ongoing whitebark pine decline is not a dire crisis for Yellowstone grizzly bears. We have put in place intense monitoring systems and response mechanisms to allow management agencies to carefully manage the bears and their habitat. We have established strict habitat protections to assure them the space and security they need to survive. We have been very careful and deliberate. We have used the best available science in every decision to assure the future of these bears. We remain committed to their future.
Chris Servheen is a professional grizzly bear biologist who has been the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 29 years. He was also the leader of the interagency effort that lead to the recovery and delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bears."
