Hunting - A Bear Necessity?

A nasty note on which to start the new year, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has announced that their intend to remove protection from Yellowstone's grizzly bear population in the coming year. As someone who has had a grizzly bear themed calender for the last two years, my immediate reaction to this is one of shock and disgust. For a moment, however I will attempt to step back from my bear loving self and take a look at the reasons behind this decision.

Adorable animal which should clearly not be hunted; Source.

For the past 40 years, the bears of Yellowstone have been protected by hunting and have enjoyed population increases and range expansion under this protection from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This protection was not undue, the grizzly population suffered huge losses from excessive hunting during the 1900s which earned them a place on the IUCN red list. The recovery of their population, however, has put pressure of the US FWS to revoke their special status, from state officials. The proposed new system would involve handing over the management of bear population to state level, after the delisting would remove federal protection. The agreement places no limit on the hunting of bears outside of the central Yellowstone management area, and within that splits the bears between the three states which share the region - Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. There are some loose pledges to maintain the bear population in the management area above 600, but nothing concrete except an apparent need to shoot at things.

Arguably, the new laws would promote, rather than limit the killing of bears. There are underlying societal and economic reasons why there is such animosity towards bears, and other large carnivores. Whilst states would plead that bears area threat to humans, the reasoning is more likely to do with their role as competitors for big game. However, the problems of hunting these animals also have multiple dimensions. Culturally, they hold high significance for many native people who also live in the Yellowstone management area and have not been consulted in the decision to delist bears. Ecologically, there are many issues in play. Bears are, arguably, still in a very vulnerable position in Yellowstone and are dying in disproportionate numbers each year even with the protection of the ESA. For example, climate change induced drought and invasive species have extirpated one of the bears main food sources, the cutthroat trout, as well as damaging other food sources including Whitebark pines and elk. Grizzlys have very low reproductive rates, with huge amounts of parental investment, meaning that they are very slow to react to changes in the environment and colonise new territories. This means that they will feel the pressures of climate change more than most, causing their population to suffer alongside hunting.

My personal bias aside, I feel that there is not a great case for delisting the grizzly bear from the ESA protection. There is a very real chance that hunting would lead to extirpation outside of the Yellowstone management area, where there are no limits in place. Isolating the population within Yellowstone, whilst hunting them as well, could have disastrous impacts on then stability of the population as their numbers dwindle and their genetic diversity lessens. Let me know your thoughts below, but I feel that there is no necessity behind this law change, simply a demand for blood.

Could the removal of the 'ESA Safety Net' mean extirpation for Yellowstone's grizzlys?; Source.