A female grizzly sow with two cubs (Photo courtesy of Glenn Phillips via www.glennphillipsphoto.com. | Used with permission).
If a grizzly bear gets killed outside a designated “recovery zone” as opposed to inside, does it matter?
Conservation groups and federal agencies debated in U.S.District Court in Missoula on Friday whether bears that are killed outside the recovery zone should be considered in management plans, not just counted.
They also debated whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services did a thorough enough review when it issued a plan for “removing” predators, including grizzly bears that create problems for livestock in Montana.
Removing animals can include killing them. Wildlife Services removes predators in 38 counties where grizzly bears may be present, according to a court filing.
Attorney Matthew Bishop, on behalf of groups that sued the government, including WildEarth Guardians, argued the effects of grizzly bear deaths in the spaces between “recovery zones” are important, but they’re being ignored by the government.
“In some ways, the most important bears are not the ones that stay in Yellowstone or Glacier, but they’re the ones that actually make the move and disperse between recovery zones,” said Bishop, with the Western Environmental Law Center.
Establishing connections between those zones is important, he said.
“But there’s sort of this space where no one’s really analyzing the effects of grizzly bear mortality once they leave these areas,” Bishop said. “And that’s what this case is about.”
In Montana, he said, Wildlife Services takes the lead in responding to conflicts between grizzly bears and livestock.
As such, he requested federal Judge Dana Christensen declare the federal agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act and call for a new analysis for its predator removal plan that includes a thorough review — a “robust” environmental impact statement.
