Feds, state agencies behind Bitterroot grizzlies preparation

Laura Lundquist

(Missoula Current) Even though the grizzlies are already there, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee’s message for the Bitterroot region is “be prepared for bears.” But in some cases there is a lack of preparation.

The Bitterroot subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee this week discussed the ongoing migration of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot and the social and legal issues that precede them.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks grizzly bear biologist Jamie Jonkel was pleased that at least Missoula County and the city of Missoula are taking proactive steps to reduce the risk of bear conflict by approving ordinances requiring bear-proof trash cans in a larger buffer zone. Around Missoula and the Potomac.

“We succeeded. We are in step 3 of the Canadian Bear Smart approach,” Jonkel said. “We have a pretty good portion of the county land and the city as well as the Potomac Valley under this ordinance. So I’m very tickled.”

It didn’t happen too soon. Missoula and other Missoula County cities have had regular problems with black bears, but grizzly bears are not far behind. Jonkel said there has been some grizzly activity in and around the Potomac, Bonner and Rattlesnake.

“We don’t know how many different grizzly bears there are, but a lot of bears. Grizzlies are very slowly creeping into this area,” Jonkel said.

In her update on bear distribution in Montana, FWP research biologist Cecily Costello reviewed GPS data from a handful of bears known to have traveled south from northern recovery areas, including two from this year.

One of the pairs that entered the Sapphire Range near Stevensville last year was a young man. He spent four to six weeks this year in the Sapphire Range north and east of Florence before heading north again.

A second man was caught in a black bear trap at the MPG Ranch east of Florence. FWP collared the bear and biologists tracked its movement along the Clark Fork River between Bonner and Clinton, the Bitterroot River south of Lolo, and the Sapphire Mountains in between.

“Right now, it’s really in the Bitterroot Valley — these places are pretty new,” Cecily said. “It’s been a while since these two men have had some contact with each other.”

Jennifer Fortin-Noreus, a grizzly bear biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said hair and camera ties used to document the presence of grizzly bears in southwestern Montana detected a grizzly this year near the Moccasin Range southwest of Clinton. They don’t know yet if the bear has ended up at MPG Ranch. They also identified another grizzly in the southern Sapphire Range, Fortin-Noreus said.

All the bears appear to have stayed fairly close to migration corridors and areas between recovery zones predicted by University of Montana researcher Sarah Sells. He based his habitat modeling on food availability, forest cover, and distance from human development, and for the most part, migrating bears agree with his assumptions.

Most of the collared bears’ data points fall along the corridors and areas he’s identified, so Fortin-Noreus now uses Sells’ map to select his fur and camera position.

In his most recent work, Sells applied the model to the Bitterroot restoration area, assuming bears would migrate north.

“These are previously unpublished results. But we ran our simulations over the entire area. And that really shows us that overall, based on these bears, there’s more use than the northern two-thirds of this ecosystem,” Sells said. “We can’t test these yet, but they provide predictions of what we might see in the future.”

All of this is important information because the US Fish and Wildlife Service must comply with a court order to reassess the status of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot. Twenty years ago, the agency decided to transfer 25 bears to the Bitterroot recovery area as an experimental population, but later reversed the decision and never followed through.

Hilary Cooley, Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, told the judge that the agency will complete a new environmental impact report by October 2026.

“The EIS is 23 years old, and we thought we just wanted to make sure we did a good job of fully updating the EIS to prevent future problems,” Cooley said. “We need to prepare some brief descriptions of the alternatives and these will go to the public domain. We are trying to set the end of December, the beginning of January.”

One of the requirements of the previous EIS rule was bear awareness education and preparation. But that’s where the Bitterroot falls short, both on private and federal lands.

Bruce Montgomery, FWP Bitterroot Wildlife Management Officer, said it’s not easy to get ranchers and others to adopt conflict-reducing tools like electric fences or carcass removal. But the Bitterroot Bear Resource Committee has created and held a bear awareness event for nearly 20 years. Bitterroot Disposal also strives to reduce litter conflicts by 60%. Fortunately, it was a good berry year, so there wasn’t much conflict.

“We started collecting carcasses last year. I work mainly with the ranches in the north end of the valley, where the grizzlies have been living lately. It’s still small, not many farmers in the valley are using it,” Montgomery said. “Electric fences have been a tough sell for me. “I always propose this as a possible solution to the conflict, but this year we could only come up with two proposals.”

When it comes to public land, Scott Jackson, head of the U.S. Forest Service’s National Carnivore Program, said the Bitterroot is the only restoration area that doesn’t have a food storage order that requires visitors to ensure bears can’t access human food. Some on the committee, particularly those from Idaho, said such an order should be phased in and that there should be triggers for certain milestones to take effect.

“Maybe a phased approach with some triggers would be more enlightening for people, get them thinking about whether and when we need a conservation order on part of the Bitterroot, part of the Nez Perce Clearwater Forest, or part of the entire ecosystem. But starting out of the gate, the public acceptance of grizzly bears, if you limit their use right now, the tolerance just won’t be there,” said JJ Teare, Idaho Fish and Game Clearwater Region warden.

Members of the public objected to using triggers to enforce retention orders. Idaho Conservation League spokesman Brad Smith asked if the trigger was due to the presence of a grizzly bear or if the committee would wait until grizzlies were in trouble.

“I leave feeling a little confused about the trigger approach,” Smith said. “I would make a proposal to do something proactive and have some kind of timeline. There are good reasons to do this sooner rather than later. If the presence or absence of a grizzly bear is in fact the trigger, I think waiting for that trigger will lead to more public outcry against grizzly bear recovery if it is the trigger that leads to more restrictions.

Michele Dietrich suggested the Bitterroot could start by establishing food storage orders at the campgrounds.

Jackson said similar ideas have been brought up in the food pantry order task force.

“These are some of the difficult discussions we’ve had in our working group and why we still don’t have any recommendations. Because there are some disagreements and different views. We will continue to work on them,” Jackson said. “We’ll shoot for the spring meeting to get a frame.”

Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at Lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.