POWELL — A group of conservation organizations are recommending changes to the current grizzly bear conservation policy in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, asking wildlife managers to enact legal measures to prevent conflicts rather than relying on volunteer programs. 

Six groups are asking the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee (YES) of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee to identify areas where there are high numbers of conflicts between bears and livestock or people. 

The groups want the committee to work with producers and conservation organizations to negotiate the retirement of certain grazing allotments — especially those in areas where there are repeated conflicts or that serve as connectivity corridors for the species.

The groups also want to make bear spray, food storage requirements and electric fences mandatory in hunt camps and with outfitters working in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Western Watersheds Project, Sierra Club, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, WildEarth Guardians, the Humane Society of the United States and Friends of the Bitterroot sent the public letter last month after being disappointed with the conversations and opportunities to voice their opinions during a YES workshop in October. 

They say “many key ideas were either not adequately addressed due to a lack of time, or were ignored.” 

During the workshop, participants — including from the environmental organizations — were asked to submit comments and questions. 

The second day of the virtual Oct. 28-29 meeting was set up specifically to address conflicts in agriculture, hunting and recreation and in communities located in or near grizzly habitat. 

However, “the conversation seemed rushed and there wasn’t space for many concerns or questions to be addressed; nor were participants told how their input ... would be considered or addressed, leaving several of us — who sent detailed ideas and comments — wondering if our input would be considered at all,” the groups’ letter reads. 

They accused facilitators of reporting the discussion as if everyone in the workshop was on board with utilizing only voluntary measures and “allowing livestock producers the flexibility to do what they wanted on public lands.” 

Based on a GIS mapping analysis of BLM and Forest Service grazing allotments within core grizzly habitat known as the Demographic Monitoring Area, approximately 5 million of the DMA’s 12.4 million acres are currently grazed. 

In defense of volunteer measures, a Wyoming large carnivore biologist charged with running the state’s Bear Wise program points to successes in conservation efforts and, at the same time, issues with mandates. 

As an example, Dusty Lasseter, of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in Cody, said there used to be close to 60 bear conflicts a year in the Wapiti area. 

However, “People voluntarily changed how they live there. And now we have very few conflicts,” said Lasseter, who has spent the past eight years working to educate local residents. 

He said it’s a slow process. As new residents move to the area, they are usually keen on learning how to mitigate attractants, Lasseter said. 

But longtime residents, not used to having bears in their backyards as the species expands its territory, often wait until they’ve had a conflict before making changes. 

Even in Jackson, which has a wildlife-friendly reputation, mandates haven’t solved the problem, Lasseter said. 

“They have regulations in place, and there’s still people that are naive to the thought of having bears around,” he said. “There are things that you’ll get away with for 10 years, and then in a bad natural food year, you’re gonna have problems.” 

Famous grizzly bear 399 and her four cubs of the year have been testing the limits of conflicts in Teton County. The Jackson Hole News & Guide reports the family has gotten into unsecured grain for livestock, bee hives and compost rather than feeding on natural food sources. The conflicts put the internationally famous bears’ lives in jeopardy — a situation that would be painful for everyone involved.

“It’s a bit unnerving for our agency,” Game and Fish Regional Supervisor Brad Hovinga told the News & Guide. 

Lasseter said the current system is the best mix of education, volunteer programs and support for ranchers who own private property that’s critical to wildlife, including grizzly bears. Eliminating grazing allotments can create unintended consequences for wildlife, he said. 

“What if somebody has to sell their ranch and their private property becomes a subdivision? That’s crucial winter range.” 

But Jocelyn Leroux, Washington and Montana director for the Western Watershed Project, argues mandates are crucial for the continued success of the species. 

She cites studies showing the survival of grizzlies in areas where grazing allotments have been closed and points out that one of the deadliest conflicts is when a hunter has harvested an animal. 

“The most common occurrence of conflicts is when it takes more than one trip to pack out an animal,” Leroux said, adding, “Guided groups and hunting outfitters should be required to carry bear spray, use temporary electric fencing and proper food storage methods.” 

Lasseter, however, said every conflict is different. 

“We encourage people to be prepared,” he said, “but when it’s a dangerous encounter, who am I to say what people have to use to defend themselves?” 

“The truth is, we have a robust population and we’re trying to minimize human-caused mortality” of grizzlies, he said, adding, “In a lot of ways our goals are the same, to reduce conflicts. But you know what the debate is: What’s the most effective way to do that?” 

Game and Fish Large Carnivore Program Supervisor Daniel Thompson believes the groups’ recent letter was written in an attempt to gain support from their backers.

“Nothing will appease these groups,” Thompson said. “In the end, this is how they make their money. They have to create a problem in order to deflect from the reality that grizzly bears are recovered.”