IGBC has hard time understanding Judge Molloy ruled against them not because of grizzly mortality, but lack of food for grizzly in the area-

Perhaps the bear population could withstand more deaths; and, hey why not acquiesce with what is already happening? Bear bureaucrats could call that “adaptive management.” However, Judge Molloy didn’t relist the greater Yellowstone grizzly because too many bears were being killed. Oh well, here’s the story . . .

Link fixed! Grizzly group [IGBC] eyes raising bear death limits. Conservationists contest idea that more bruins could die without hurting regional population. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide.

And grizzly conservation groups need to push not so much on holding down the mortality limits as enlarging the great bear’s primary conservation area.

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

9 Responses to Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team — raise GYE grizzly mortality limits?

  1. Virginia says:

    I tried to read this article, but could only get the comments you made.

  2. Save bears says:

    Here ya go Virginia


    Thanks. I fixed it now, Ralph Maughan

  3. Virginia says:

    SB-thank you. I could have gone to Jackson Hole News myself I guess, but I just wondered if the posting of the article was not correct or if it was just my computer. This attempt to raise the limits seems like just another typical mis”management” of the bears and the easy way out in allowing more deaths.

  4. April Clauson says:

    I read this early this morning, they are suppose to protect the bear are they not? I am so tired of politics taking precedence over wild life and natural resources.

  5. Alan says:

    What a bunch of morons! Maybe they SHOULD take the bears off the list and put the habitat on it. Then maybe somebody would get a clue.

  6. Gregg Losinski says:

    The title incorrectly indicates that the IGBC (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee) is looking at taking action on mortality limits. The group in question is actually the YGCC (Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee), formerly the YES (Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommitte). The status of the YGCC/YES is unclear beacuse of recent court action. Prior to the delisting YES reported to IGBC; per the Conservation Strategy YCGG not longer directly reported, but informed IGBC. Where this is all at is also unclear. People who believe that relisting was the automatic salvation for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem should take a hard look at the protections lost and the chaos created by the recent decision. No system is perfect, but given the wide range of governmental agencies and politics involved with managing the recovery, the level of sustained cooperation and progress was truly incredible. The real question should be will the recovery efforts be able to recover.

  7. bob jackson says:

    Chuck Schwartz always supported me in the salting – griz mortality issue, but I never think support on one issue merits I slap your back if you slap mine.

    I got a feeling Chuck has been in the wars too long and it has worn him down. He wants to protect the little castle (bear population) he feels comfortable with.

    The public scares him it appears. He says people won’t tolerate bears where they weren’t before. Therefore he wants to limit their space. God, this man is a bear biologist.
    He is suppose to proud of this bear and let it be the most it can be.

    To think of a bear biologist wanting to maintain, what to them when thinking of the scope of area this bear once roamed, would be like saying wild animal parks are all we need.

    Chuck evidently can’t dream anymore. And without dreams life can become a harsh reality of non productivity. None of this has to diminish with age. Maybe the position is the problem. Maybe if he can’t get recharged it is time to move on.

    As for the “younger ones”, the ones on the Bear Study Teams who should be giving Chuck a lift when he’s down, I feel they must most want public approval or status and accolades. More than being proud of bears maybe they are most proud of themselves as “scientists”. Maybe they see the writing on the wall. What happened to the wolf biologists would be them next…and a career that won’t transfer easily to the next position.

    Man, they loved the excitement of the position when in favor but now want to give the bear over to the Nazis. They aren’t coming up with viable options for the bear…just hope the states manage when everyone of them knows they won’t. Is the bear any different than the wolf? The attitude states perceive of them? No, thus I feel these bear biologists just want to bail out to save their own skins.

    As I say to anyone who still has the energy to carry on and won’t, “just get them off the road” (Movie, Fargo).

    With dreams Chucks response to the younger slackers would have an attitude of bears were here long before man…and they occupied the land humans now trespass on….land that he now says these bears don’t belong.

    This is the same logic every farmer or rancher gives for ANY wildlife that inhibits them from raping, exploiting and pillaging the land and its resources.

    With dreams comes the energy to tell those same people who can’t tolerate any given animal how it works best for them as a human being. Chuck may be a very able bodied scientist but most scientists are limited to studying those animals.

    They can not be considered experts when they come to conclusions of what a populace will or will not accept with their pet animal, bird, flower or fish. To extend into this realm of human behavior and ways and means to alter or flourish is a case of vanity for them. Stick to the science and “bring in the Professionals” (Fargo again). Advise the professionals what can be physically done with bears and the ways bears can be kept best as bears within human habitation…and then vanity becomes “working agreements”.

    If they need examples look no further than indigenous peoples and how they lived with predators and todays supposed “man killers” for hundreds of thousands of years and still had quality lives. Let the public know this and let them know this relationship can give them depth of life they could only imagine.

    Let them know to think first of getting rid of problems, every problem coming their way, soon becomes lack of respect…and with lack of respect comes abuse. Let this public know to abuse or even having the attitude of abuse does a lot of emotional harm to them. And the way to start changing this abuse is to not even thing of tolerance of bears but actually the love of bears.

    These are the dreams, I feel, Chuck needs to be thinking of.

  8. dewey says:

    I’m confused. Bringing all this weight to bear on Schwartz seems to ignore the fact it’s Prime Minister Servheen we should be heating and treating here… he’s the one who keeps moving the mortality goalposts , isn’t he ?

  9. bob jackson says:


    For my part I was giving Chuck a locker room pep talk. I grew up in sports and this is how my coaches motivated players, whether it was high school or college. Both him and Doug smith of NPS wolves have done so much for their respective animals as biologists. It is the Chris Servheen’s and those “youngens” of his ilk no pep talk is needed.

    I very much believe, as biologists of high profile species, they have had to take on roles of public Affairs officers when the infrastructure should have provided these personnel. Especially, especially with highly visible and controversial species such as wolves and bears.

    For both Doug and Chuck to supposedly say wolves and bears should be hunted goes well beyond their role of being scientists and recovery experts. Blanket statements of proposed management, based on people perception, is beyond their roles as scientists. They can offer this as individuals but not with their label or title as biologists and scientists.

    Neither have any control of how these animals will “be hunted”. Thus, to me, both show wear of the years and evidently are becming beaten down by the very fact they had to take on roles of public persuaders more than being biologists.

    The govt. should never have made them carry dual roles. Organization of public perception and law enforcement was terrible from the onset with the wolf reintroduction. There needed to be Public Affairs officers to carry out the management of people.

    The tide of support with the initial reintroduction of wolves very much overwhelmed livestock interests and wolf hater folks out there. There is no reason any good public Affairs and coordinated law enforcement effort could not have carried it through to the final stage of effective delisting if the infrastructure had been there. the biologists still would have been center stage but they would have taken their ques from folks never put on the pay roll.


November 2009


‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey