Wildlife Experts Warn Grizzly
Threat To Southwest Not Gone

By David Bowser

Ranchers along the New Mexico-Arizona state line breathed a sigh of relief in March when Congressman Joe Skeen, R-N.M., announced that grizzly bears would not be introduced in the area. But a Montana State University wildlife specialist says don’t be too sure.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said during a congressional budget hearing in early March that the agency had no plans to pursue a request from the Southwest Center for Biodiversity to introduce grizzly bears into eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.

Skeen says the agency's decision demonstrates that this particular ecosystem cannot sustain more predators, particularly since the Mexican wolf was recently reintroduced in the same general area.

But Jim Knight, a wildlife specialist at Montana State University and formerly with New Mexico State University, warns that grizzly bears could be on their way regardless.

"Looking at history," Knight says, "when it was first discussed to put the Mexican wolf in New Mexico, there was opposition to that. The state game and fish department opposed it, and it got set back, but the idea was certainly never forgotten. I think that plans were laid, strategies developed, and as a result, look what's happened today."

He thinks the same scenario is developing for the grizzly bear.

"I personally look at the evidence and I would suspect probably that the wolf reintroduction program is a precursor to grizzly bear reintroduction," Knight says. "Some of the things that must be decided, some of the things they must contend with as part of a wolf reintroduction program, will pave the way for putting in grizzly bear.

"That area where the wolves have been put has very little livestock, relatively speaking," Knight continues. "When you look at everything from the White Sands Missile Range to the Armendaris Ranch to the Ladder Ranch to the Gila Wilderness, all the way across to Arizona, there's just a little strip of area around Glenwood and down to Clift that has livestock. I suspect that depradation by wolves is not going to be real great.

"That means when people bring up that concern while grizzly bears are proposed to be introduced again, they aren't going to have much evidence to show. The other side will be able to say, 'We put the wolves in there and there hasn't been much of a problem with depradation.'

"So I think a lot of the groundwork is being laid right now."

Indeed, Peter Galvin, conservation biologist for the Southwest Center for Biodiversity, acknowledges that his group is not giving up the idea. He told the Associated Press they would work to get the public behind grizzly bear reintroduction.

"We certainly have our work cut out," Galvin says. "We didn't expect Congressman Skeen and the Fish and Wildlife Service to simply agree to our request."

He says it took years of lobbying to get wolves reintroduced.

"That's what is going to happen with grizzly bears, too," Galvin vows.

Knight says he is opposed to reintroduction of the grizzly bear to New Mexico for many of the same reasons he opposed reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone and the Gila National Forest: It's bad science.

"Probably the biggest concern biologically that I would have about putting grizzly bears in New Mexico is that they are extinct," Knight says. "There are no New Mexico grizzly bears, no southern Rocky Mountain grizzly bears available to put in there. What we would be doing is taking grizzly bears that are absolutely the wrong critter and putting them in New Mexico and calling them New Mexico grizzly bears.

"Biologically, we are doing nothing but creating a spot to put grizzly bears that were never there before at all. It's a whole different process of selecting which animals are around to be breeding in the northern Rockies than in the southern Rockies. It would be a very, very artificial grizzly bear population."

Knight says evidence shows that the more pampered, protected and artificial any wildlife population is, the less likely it is to develop the characteristics that are necessary to survive in today's world.

There is also danger to campers, hikers, hunters and fishermen as well as ranchers in the area, a concern raised as well by New Mexico wildlife biologists.

"I believe that the grizzly bear is the classic example of the fact that when a species is to be reintroduced or re-established in an area, the consideration should go beyond the biological and should include social as well as economical considerations," says Byron D. Wright, an ag specialist for wildlife with the Extension service.

"The reintroduction of the grizzly bear can certainly have social impact and ramifications as well as economic ramifications. These are things that need to be seriously considered."

Jon Boren, wildlife specialist with New Mexico's Extension service, agrees.

"I think that's really vital for people to understand," Boren says. "I think that as we see more and more of a push towards reintroduction of different species, we really need to get back and start looking at it."

Like Knight, Boren thinks it's important to look at the science. "We need to get away from this emotionalism that's driving a lot of this," Boren says. "We need to look at the facts and look at the science, but we need to take this a step further and address some of the economic and social impact. We've got to keep in mind that some of those individuals in some of those areas are the ones that are being affected the most."

"I think anyone who says they doubt there's going to be a problem is not fooling themselves," Knight says. "They're actually being deceptive."

Knight notes records showing human-grizzly bear encounters and the kinds of factors involved.

"When you take grizzly bears and put them into an area that they're not very familiar with, it is likely they're going to be hungry," Knight says. "It is likely they are going to be very protective of whatever food sources they do have.

"Therefore, it would be likely that encounters with humans are going to result in some kind of confrontation rather than the grizzly just retreating. The reintroduction of grizzly bears into an area like New Mexico is certainly likely to result in some human-bear encounters."

Records show that a number of those encounters are fatal.

"I hope people will be very upfront when the decisions are being made," Knight says. "I hope they don't pick information that supports one side of the agenda or the other. I hope they do rely on scientific information rather than utilizing the more emotional, social or political data that is available to support their cause. If we do that, then I think we'll end up making the decision that's much better in the long run for today's world, and for that matter much better in the long run for that wildlife species that we’re going to have to work with in the future."

While Clark tells Congress that the Fish and Wildlife Service has no plans to introduce grizzly bears to New Mexico and Arizona, the agency is planning a reintroduction of grizzlies in the Bitterroot Mountains on the Idaho-Montana state line as early as 1999.

Wright insists there are issues that can have a disproportionate impact on some people and need to be more closely examined.

"If a few individuals are being made to bear the impact and the brunt of a particular situation, that needs to be examined, especially if those people have no recourse or method of dealing with that impact or burden being placed on them.

"I wonder if everyone truly understands the significance of introducing grizzlies into an area, based on their behavior and unpredictable nature at times," Wright says. "I don't know if everyone understands the full extent of human injury and loss of life that goes with dealing with grizzly bears."

Wright says he thinks it's important that everyone understand the entire breadth and depth of the situation prior to supporting or not supporting an issue.

"This is something where there may be potential for increased awareness," he says.

"I would say the grizzly bear is the prime example for cases in which we have to get information out," Boren says. "Our objective here from the Extension wildlife office is to provide information and facts and let people make informed decisions based upon facts. We need to get out not only the biology of the grizzly bear, the behavior, but also document information throughout the nation on the social and economic impacts and get that information out to people."