MISSOULA — In early 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will decide whether to delist some populations of grizzly bears in the U.S. Northern Rockies.
As Montanans consider their future with grizzly bears, University of Montana scientists are helping inform the social, ecological and policy aspects of the dialogue.
Grizzlies are emblematic to the West and particularly to Montana, where most grizzly bears in the lower 48 call home. Thanks to species protections and concerted, collaborative conservation efforts, grizzly bear populations have increased since its listing on the Endangered Species Act in 1975.
But with that recovery, more conflicts have arisen between grizzly bears and humans — from unsecured attractants leading to habituation to livestock depredations and human-grizzly bear encounters that can threaten the safety of humans and grizzly bears alike.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks recently released a new management plan for grizzly bears that would direct state management of the species if they are delisted by the USFWS.
At this crossroads, Montanans have the opportunity to help define their future with grizzly bears, keeping both humans and bears in mind.
UM researchers with the W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation and the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit are assisting with the conversation.
The Once Wild West
The grizzly bear’s historic range once covered most of western North America, stretching from Alaska to Mexico and from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River.
But as Americans expanded their range West and sought to remove large carnivores from the landscape, grizzly bear numbers crashed – dwindling to less than 1,000 in the lower 48 before the ESA protected them.
When first listed on the ESA, Congress set the bar for delisting grizzly bears: recovery over a “significant” portion of its original range. Later in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, six recovery areas were identified as having sufficient habitat quality to support a “revived” grizzly population.
These zones include the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, Selkirk Ecosystem, North Cascades Ecosystem and Bitterroot Ecosystem.
Today, grizzlies only occupy about 6% of their original range and are established in four out of six recovery zones. However, grizzly bear populations remain absent within the Bitterroot and North Cascades ecosystems since their extirpation — or complete removal — in these areas in the 1900s.
The Bitterroot Ecosystem spans more than 5,800 square miles along the border of Idaho and Montana. In the early 2000s, USFWS planned to reintroduce grizzlies to the ecosystem, but action was never taken.
Grizzly bears now appear to have made some headway into the area on their own, and in 2023 a federal district judge ordered USFWS to actively reconsider plans to reintroduce grizzly bears there.
Dr. Sarah Sells, a U.S. Geological Survey research ecologist with UM’s Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, recently authored a study with Dr. Cecily Costello, a Montana FWP grizzly bear research biologist, to identify habitat grizzly bears are most likely to use as they naturally repopulate the Bitterroot Ecosystem.
Sells and Costello’s study, “Predicting future grizzly bear habitat use in the Bitterroot Ecosystem under recolonization and reintroduction scenarios,” highlights the potential for this recovery zone in the continued success story of grizzly bear conservation.
The Importance of the Bitterroot
Efforts to improve the genetic exchange between the two populations of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem have been a critical lynchpin in the discourse surrounding the species’ recovery.
Population exchange is a major factor when it comes to determining if a population is “genetically viable” – able to reproduce and maintain stability.
The risks of genetically isolated grizzly bear populations are a key concern. Without genetic interchange, populations are at risk of inbreeding, leading to malformations and a lack of resilience against environmental changes.
Maintaining genetic variation is critical for wild populations to survive, reproduce and adapt to future habitat transitions, such as those caused by climate change.
Sells and Costello’s study expands on their previous research using movement data from 65 GPS-collared bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem to predict habitat use across grizzly bears’ range as they recover.
By using simulations to predict dispersal routes and habitat suitability in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, Sells and Costello’s research demonstrates how grizzly bears could move across the landscape.
Their work suggests that the Bitterroot Ecosytem could serve as a natural bridge between the Northern Continental Divide and Greater Yellowstone populations.
“Reestablishing a population in the Bitterroot Ecosystem would make it that much more likely that the genetic flow could happen successfully because they don’t have to get as far before they find another grizzly bear population to mix genes with,” Sells said.
The study also points to the chance for increasing interactions between grizzly bears and people, particularly as the species expands into areas that were once less developed.
Sells’ and Costello’s work can help facilitate proactive mitigations to protect humans and grizzly bears alike, particularly by helping prevent grizzly bears from becoming habituated to human attractants.
“It takes societies and communities to find ways to work together to ensure the safety of both people and grizzly bears,” Sells said.
A Future with Grizzlies
UM Associate Professor Alex Metcalf and his Human Dimensions Lab have conducted trailblazing work on the human implications of living with grizzly bears so communities can better understand a future living alongside them. This research helps paint the picture of what a social landscape with the species might look like as their numbers recover.
There is a wide spectrum of political and social discourse about grizzly bears, but Metcalf said Montanans hold very positive attitudes toward the species.
This is based on a survey his lab conducted in 2020, in collaboration with FWP, where a large majority of Montanans agreed or strongly agreed that grizzly bears play an important role here.
According to the survey, 85% of Montanans said grizzly bears are part of what makes Montana special, 80% said grizzly bears are important for ecosystem health and 75% said it is important to maintain a self-sustaining grizzly bear population in Montana.
At the same time, the lab’s work shows that positive attitudes don’t mean people ignore the risks this apex predator can pose. Through a variety of different methodologies, including interviews and surveys of different populations, Metcalf’s lab investigates how people react to and feel about grizzly bears in a variety of contexts.
Although many people believe the species should exist, they also believe it should be carefully managed. His work has found that as grizzly bear numbers grow, people’s perceptions of them will likely change over time – highlighting the complexities of living with them.
“Because grizzly bears can pose a real threat, there are deeper psychological implications for them,” Metcalf said. “What are identified as hot spots for conservation can also be hot spots for conflict.”
Coexisting with grizzly bears, he said, often comes down to understanding the actions citizens can take to prevent conflict — the biggest of which is securing attractants.
The lab has looked at how wildlife professionals can promote this behavior among communities and what factors most influence people’s participation in helping to reduce conflict.
The findings point to people's relationship with their neighbors and what the social norms are within their community as the most influential indicators.
“When we look at individual factors such as people’s income, risk perspective or exposure to grizzly bears, they are often less powerful than the collective factors like social norms,” Metcalf said.
As people on both sides of the grizzly bear debate implore for more science-based management, Metcalf underscores the fact that science can’t tell us what the “right” answer is for what a future with grizzly bears should look like. But Metcalf’s work should help reduce conflict, emphasize the commonalities amongst people and build stronger relationships.
Montana’s grappling with grizzly bear expansion will make it a place to watch as this apex predator is rewritten onto the Western landscape – and UM research is on the forefront of helping to inform this complex dialogue.
