Canadian Groups Attack Bear Transfer Coalition Says Country Can’t Afford To Send Its Grizzlies To Selway-Bitterroot Area

A coalition of environmental groups opposes the transfer of Canadian grizzly bears to the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness in the United States, saying Canada has no bears to spare.

A draft environmental impact statement, dated July, recommends that up to 15 bears over five years be moved from British Columbia to the Bitterroot Mountains of central Idaho and western Montana.

“That’s the biggest piece of wild country we have left,” said Chris Servheen, who is in charge of the project for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “It’s a huge potential habitat.”

But a coalition of 49 environmental groups on both sides of the border opposes the transfer, saying Canada has no bears to spare.

“We have to know the source population is stable,” said Mike Sawyer of the Rocky Mountain Ecosystem Coalition. “We can’t say that about any Canadian population. Everything points to declining populations.”

The plan is the preferred option among four alternatives in the study.

Although the British Columbia government will take no stand on the plan until it gets a formal request for bears, the province is already talking about it with the Americans.

“There have been informal discussions,” said Matt Austin, a large-carnivore specialist with the British Columbia environment ministry.

The plan suggests bringing about 25 bears to the Bitterroots over five years, half from British Columbia and half from U.S. sources. Alberta, which has relatively few grizzlies, will not supply bears.

The animals would be brought to the center region of the Bitterroots and allowed to range over a wide area between Missoula and Coeur d’Alene.

The bears would be considered an experimental, and not threatened, population, said Servheen. Experimental status gives the department more flexibility to manage the bears while still protecting them, said Servheen.

“In terms of killing, there’s almost no difference between experimental status and fully listed (as threatened),” he said.

Only a bear on private land destroying private property could be shot, said Servheen. Even then, the landowner could only shoot the bear after Fish and Wildlife failed to fix the problem.

The plan recalls a controversial 1995 transfer of wolves from Alberta to Yellowstone National Park. That transfer is now considered a success.

But like those wolves, any transplanted bears are likely to face an uncertain welcome.

Servheen acknowledges widespread public fear of grizzlies. In 1996, the Idaho state legislature passed a motion opposing reintroduction.

The plan admits some of the transplanted bears would likely die as a result of the move.

Although Austin says no studies have been done into the long-term effects of transferring bears, he adds that grizzly numbers are stable in the south part of the province.

But Sawyer maintains that mining, oil and gas exploration and forestry in both Alberta and British Columbia are encroaching on grizzly habitat at near-record levels. The effects of that development are unknown, he says.

“You don’t conserve bears unless you conserve habitat. … You have to put constraints on human economic activity and nobody seems to want to do that.

“If (the Americans) want our bears, maybe they should be willing to fund the research to make the case that our bears can support the transfer.”