Not that long ago I drove down into Yellowstone National Park with my younger brother. He was fresh off the boat back in Montana -- literally -- having just spent eight months working on a remote Pacific atoll. A drive into the park, not quite 50 miles from my place, seemed a good way to catch up with each other. We put the windows down in the pickup, tuned-in to the country station, and pointed ourselves south.
Our talk -- as happens on a drive into the park -- turned towards bears. Grizzlies, and the challenges posed by sharing this country with them. Driving the length of Paradise Valley that morning and passing through the town of Gardiner highlighted how diffuse the borders are between the spaces that we occupy and what we point to as ‘bear habitat’. We share the same landscape, and so we inevitably encounter each other.
For some, that is exactly the appeal of this country. Either way, it raises challenges.
Grizzly-human conflicts are an enduring issue. Living in the heart of grizzly country drives home the challenges posed by our proximity to these powerful, symbolic, and charismatic animals. We raise livestock in bear habitat, we recreate in bear habitat, and we build our homes in bear habitat. And the range that bears occupy is expanding.
The last decade has seen the rapid decline of several important natural food sources for bears. Foraging for many of these foods has historically focused bear activity in more remote and isolated areas. The specific behavioral responses of bears to changing food availability are up for debate. But it seems likely that we can expect bears to come into increasing contact with humans as they pursue alternate food sources. Likewise, the possibility of increasing bear populations may translate into more human-bear encounters as dispersing individuals pass through and/or colonize new habitat. Without effective ways of managing these contacts, increased conflicts between humans and grizz are a sure bet.
Grizzly-human conflicts matter. Conflict prevention strategies that are effective and sustainable are integral to promoting durable coexistence. Even under the absolute protections of the Endangered Species Act, the majority of documented grizzly mortalities are human-induced. Largely related to conflict situations. These animals live or die depending in large part on how we manage our encounters with them. Short of killing off all the large predators in the ecosystem, resolving or preventing conflicts is a necessity.
I’ve had the recent opportunity to begin a discussion about these issues with a number of people who are closely involved with grizzly conservation and management. These conversations have yielded surprisingly consistent responses. We -- the broad community of people who are concerned about the state of the land we live on -- can all agree that reducing conflicts with bears is a good thing, regardless of differing perspectives on other matters. Conflict prevention is a challenge that transcends most other facets of bear management. It is an issue regardless of whether the bear is listed under the Endangered Species Act or not. It is an issue regardless of the absolute size or trend of the grizzly population in the lower 48 states. Conflict prevention is an issue around which there is great potential for common-interest engagement in an arena that is otherwise too often beset by conflict among stakeholders with different values.
The question is: How should we approach the issue? What exactly are the best ways to prevent conflicts -- in terms that are both substantive and sustainable? What challenges should we focus our energy on if we want positive outcomes that are rooted in genuine and enduring community engagement? What perspectives, practices, and situations will help us orient most effectively to the challenge of promoting conflict prevention and coexistence? And, finally, at what scale should we really be trying to engage? Big questions, that are all worth asking.
There are many very capable people engaged in grizzly bear management and conflict prevention. Often they are working within collaborative community contexts. We should gather and integrate the experiences and insights of these men and women -- to refine our understanding of what is needed to implement conflict prevention programs that are effective and self-sustaining. Integrating and communicating these broadly applicable lessons about best practices and the nuances of their application is necessary if we want to coexist with grizzlies.
It is easy to value action for its own sake. But it is also important to reflect on outcomes. We can give great lip-service to bear conservation: to community outreach or to education. But in a case such as this -- dealing with an animal like the grizzly -- we are operating amongst issues that are dynamic and highly contextual. What works in one place may not work well in another. What works well for one bear manager may not be effective for another. Institutions and organizations -- governmental or not -- may play hugely beneficial roles, or they may not. Community dynamics may or may not be of paramount significance. All dependant on context. The question of greatest significance in every case is "why?" If we can begin to tease out the answer to that question, we will equip ourselves to much more surely and efficiently cultivate situations that not only conserve bears, but also reconcile the personal concerns and values of the entire human community. Refining our sense of what matters most, across contexts, in terms of reducing conflicts will be an exercise of enduring value, in response to an enduring challenge.
Photo credit: Shane Lin
