Grizzly deaths down by half in Yellowstone area

2013-11-04T19:00:00Z 2013-11-04T20:53:45Z Grizzly deaths down by half in Yellowstone areaBy CHRISTINE PETERSON Star-Tribune staff writer Casper Star-Tribune Online

The number of grizzly bear deaths declined by more than 50 percent this year in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, according to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.

The numbers are particularly notable because trees produced fewer than normal whitebark pine cones, an important grizzly bear food. Grizzly bears’ reaction to declines in whitebark pine cones will help determine if the bear is removed from the endangered species list.

Twenty-four grizzly bears have died so far in 2013 compared to 56 in 2012. Rates of females with cubs are also high this year, said Frank van Manen, leader of the grizzly bear study team.

It’s risky to draw long-term conclusions from one year’s numbers, van Manen said.

“These systems are complex, and there are a lot of interrelations we can’t predict,” he said. “This isn’t a trend, but it is a noteworthy observation.”

The Yellowstone ecosystem did have a large crop of berries, which helped provide additional food, he said.

The interagency study team will present its paper on how grizzly bears respond to changes in available food at a Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee meeting Wednesday and Thursday in Bozeman, Mont.

Conflicts between grizzly bears and humans are also down this year in Wyoming, said Dan Thompson, large carnivore section supervisor for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. He in part credits continued education on how to bear-proof food while recreating in the backcountry.

Hunters are generally responsible for the largest number of bear deaths, but were second to livestock conflicts this year, van Manen said.

Grizzlies injured two people in Wyoming and two people in Yellowstone National Park in 2013.

Bear deaths from 2013 are not final since grizzlies are still active. They should begin hibernating soon.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed grizzlies from the endangered species list in 2007. A federal judge put them back on the list in 2009 because of several concerns including the future of whitebark pine, which is dying from blister rust and the mountain pine beetle.

An appeals court dismissed some of the concerns in 2011 but upheld the whitebark pine ruling. The court told the Fish and Wildlife Service it needed to know more about bears’ reaction to the tree’s decline before grizzlies could be removed.

If the interagency study team reports that plentiful whitebark pine is not critical to grizzly bears’ survival, the Fish and Wildlife Service could move toward a delisting proposal. The Fish and Wildlife Service likely will not make a decision on a delisting proposal until late December or early January, said Chris Servheen, the service’s grizzly bear coordinator.

Reach Open Spaces reporter Christine Peterson at 307-746-3121 or Follow her on Twitter @PetersonOutside.


Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(1) Comments

  1. normal
    Report Abuse
    normal - November 04, 2013 7:38 pm
    CST published earlier articles (per the experts) that forage and food supplies were grossly dim inished for the grizzly. Yet mortality rates don't reflect the expected decline in the population due to those reported shortages; e.g., white bark pine nuts, moths, trout, berries, etc. Then we can deduce that the kill ratios that were reported for deer, elk and moose were also under estimated. Makes sense.
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Featured Businesses

Latest Offers