The Bear Facts

CASE TEACHING NOTES for The Bear Facts: Grizzly Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem

by Grace A. Wang School of Forest Resources The Pennsylvania State University

Introduction

This decision case was designed specifically for use in an upper-division natural resource policy course at Penn State University. The goal of the course is to introduce the broad themes of natural resource policy in the United States, provided via examination of selected natural resources and the laws and policies governing them. The majority of students taking this course are forest science or wildlife and fisheries majors. There are a few students from other disciplines--geography, recreation and park management, environmental resource management--each term as well.

With that in mind, the course emphasis is placed on understanding the factors underlying historical policy decisions and their subsequent contemporary situation. As such, this case study will be used as a real-life example to synthesize lecture and reading materials on the Endangered Species Act to a management problem. Specifically, the author used this case in week 10 of a 15-week semester, during the section on wildlife management and policy. The placement of the case was appropriate because students had been studying natural resource issues for the entire semester. This case may also be particularly suited to political science, conservation biology, ecology, or wildlife management courses. This case was designed to be taught in a 75-minute discussion section, although an interrupted case may be appropriate as well.

Prior to application of the case, instructors will have acquainted students with the basic provisions of the Endangered Species Act, giving students adequate background on its passage and effectiveness. In addition, instructors should have prior knowledge about federal public land management and be prepared to portray the local communities in Montana and Idaho (e.g., how might the attitudes of different geographic, economic, and environmental communities differ?)

Objectives

1. Apply natural resource policy to "real life" wildlife management case in the western United States. 2. Learn and apply basic provisions of the Endangered Species Act, and the political processes related to its mandate. 3. Critically read and understand federal legislation and government documents (Environmental Impact Statements). 4. Develop critical thinking skills and learn to support arguments (pro and con) with facts. 5. Work collaboratively to come to consensus on a contentious issue. 6. Learn to separate fact from opinion and emotional arguments. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly_Notes.html Page 1 downloaded 8/8/07 Learning Issues

Traditionally, students enrolled in natural resource programs have classroom experience in science- based curriculum, such as biology and ecology. However, these students often lack exposure in applying that science to real-life issues. This case was designed to introduce students to understanding the policy ramifications of science, and allows students to make management decisions based on that understanding. This case reflects a current concern of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in reintroducing grizzly bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem in western Montana and the panhandle of Idaho.

Teaching the Case:

Step 1 -- Students will have looked over the grizzly bear reintroduction materials at http://www.nwf.org and http://www.defenders.org and will have read the following articles:

 Fischer, Hank. "Bears and the Bitterroot." Defenders. Winter 1996/97: 16+.  Oko, Dan. "The Debate That Roared." Outside. March 1998. Reprinted at: http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/0398/9803dispwildlife.html

This first step involves a quick background of grizzly bears in the lower 48 United States (including maps and population figures). In 1997, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service decided to reintroduce the grizzly bear to the Bitterroot-Selway Ecosystem in western Montana and the panhandle of Idaho. As a large group, the discussion leader will ask students to identify stakeholders--defined as people and groups interested in or affected by grizzly bear recovery. Examples include: environmentalists, local/state/federal government officials, residents, hunters, natural resource managers, ranchers, loggers, American Indians, wildlife biologists, and tourism/recreation groups (such as outfitters)

Discussion leader will write these stakeholders on the chalkboard or overhead transparency, grouping them by theme if necessary. Time allotted: approximately 5-10 minutes.

Step 2 -- Students will count off in groups of six, and each group will convene individually. At this time, discussion leader will assign each small group as a stakeholder group. There are several ways of doing this: (1) simply assign each group; (2) assign each group by having them draw cards with pre-written groups; (3) have groups choose stakeholders.

Students will brainstorm for ~15 minutes, discussing what are the major issues ("points") that each stakeholder group holds important? For example, the group identified as ranchers will come up with a list of important issues, such as bear kills of livestock, competition of food, safety, etc. Have each student take notes, and to limit confusion, clarify that each person in the group will be representing their stakeholder group later on. Time allotted: approximately 15-20 minutes.

Step 3 -- Students will be assigned to a second group, with each group being represented by at least one different stakeholder—the makeup of this second group should consist of a rancher, an enviro, a biologist, a local decision-maker, a federal decision-maker, etc. (There are a variety of ways to do this: e.g., within each of these small groups, have one student raise his or her hand, and have group members number off again.) Keeping their respective "hats" on, the group will now become a "Citizen Management Coalition" (CMC). The CMC will represent western towns such as Hamilton, Missoula, McCall, Stanley, etc. Remember to emphasize to the students that they are speaking for their original stakeholder group, and the ideas may not represent personal views. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly_Notes.html Page 2 downloaded 8/8/07 Each community is to agree on one of the four alternatives presented in the DEIS. With each student adhering to his or her assigned role from step 2, each small group is to collectively identify issues of interest to them—ranchers will tell the environmentalists their view, etc. Time allotted: approximately 15-20 minutes.

Step 4 -- Students will then reconvene into a large group (entire class), and discuss which alternative was chosen by each CMC and why. It is also at this time that the study questions will be posed and discussed in the large group. Time allotted is the remaining portion of the class.

Study Questions

1. What are the major issues-- economic, safety, animal rights, civil rights-- for each stakeholder group?

Each stakeholder group will have a different "take" on grizzly bear reintroduction. Some of the more obvious points:

o Environmentalists and animal rights groups-- concerned with the sanctity of natural resources; letting nature take its course (and aiding in that effort); how "Mother Nature" shouldn't be fooled with. o Local/state/federal government officials-- concerned with the economic effects of grizzly bear reintroduction; safety of residents; adhering to laws and regulations (such as the ESA) o Residents--also concerned, but more locally, with the economic effects of reintroduction. o Ranchers and loggers--concerned with the effect that the grizzly bears will have on their extractive industries (when and where they will be able to operate). o Wildlife biologists--concerned with following federal law, yet constrained by local officials and citizens’ interests. o Tourism/recreation groups (such as outfitters)--look at grizzly bear reintroduction as a possible "draw" into the area. 2. Are the opinions of local citizens more or less important than those of decisions makers in Washington D.C.? Why or why not? and 3. Given that reintroduction will occur on federal public lands, how important are the opinions of all citizens? Do you think that non-local citizens should have a say in grizzly bear reintroduction?

An important point to discuss is that federal agencies are based in Washington, D.C., and often make decisions regarding their land, hundreds or thousands of miles away (in this case, Idaho and Montana). Even local natural resource managers must adhere to their superiors based in Washington. A new line of research investigates how much "more" influence local communities should have, given that they are the people most affected by the decision.

4. How important are local financial concerns in the decision to reintroduce grizzly bears? And which businesses are most likely to benefit or lose?

This question is intended to follow up to questions 2 and 3, in which local concerns may sometimes outweigh those of federal law. Businesses likely to benefit or lose will depend on the alternative chosen. With grizzly bear reintroduction, it can be speculated that outfitters may http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly_Notes.html Page 3 downloaded 8/8/07 experience an increase in their business, with potential recreationists wanting to see grizzlies "in their element." Local stores may also benefit from increased tourism in the area.

5. Taking in all factors, which alternative truly benefits the grizzly bear population?

This question is intended to have students consider the implications that the reintroduction may not truly benefit the bears (in the sense that the bears do not know that they need reintroducing!) from a genetic standpoint. Also, while many students may support reintroduction with the status of fully protected, the financial and human resources may not be available to fully implement and enforce it.

6. What are the ecological concerns related to grizzly bear reintroduction?

What is the origin and genetic derivation of the reintroduced grizzly bears? This question is intended to have students think about the trauma involved in relocating bears from another location (such as British Columbia, where the bears are currently thriving).

7. Which is more important in this case: the process or the outcome?

Given the timing of this case (last third of the course), students should be thinking about the policy process and how and when stakeholders concerns should be evaluated.

8. How might grizzly bear reintroduction affect the different extractive industries (mining, timber, grazing)?

Extractive industries may have to perform their activities around (time and space) grizzly bear habitat and management guidelines.

9. Why might different environmental groups disagree?

Two prominent environmental groups, Defenders of Wildlife and National Wildlife Federation support the grizzly bears’ reintroduction as a non-essential experimental population. They believe that working with industries and communities in managing bears will have the least amount of conflict. However, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies believes that anything short of full protection for the bears is unethical and detrimental to the general ecosystem health. Groups may disagree because they believe in different scales of reintroduction.

REFERENCES

Blanchard, Bonnie M., and Richard R. Knight. "Biological Consequences of Relocating Grizzly Bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem." Journal of Wildlife Management 59 (1995): 560-65. Eberhardt, L.L., and R.R. Knight. "How Many Grizzlies in Yellowstone?" Journal of Wildlife Management 60 (1996): 416-21. Fischer, Hank. "Bears and the Bitterroot." Defenders Winter 1996/97:16+. Garshelis, David L. "The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992." American Scientist January/February 1997: 72. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly_Notes.html Page 4 downloaded 8/8/07 "Historic Plan Paves Way for Grizzlies’ Return to Idaho’s Bitterroot Region." National Wildlife December/January 1996: 60+. "Montanans Learning to Live with Grizzly Bears." Environmental News Network 29 September 1998: http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/1998/09/092998/bears25.asp Oko, Dan. "Dispatches: The Debate That Roared." Outside March 1998: http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/0398/9803dispwildlife.html Peacock, Doug. "Making the West Safe for Grizzlies." Audubon November/December 1997: 46+. "The Possible Link." http://www.defenders.org/defenders/grizgene.html Quammen, David. "Island of the Bears." Audubon March/April 1995: 82+. "Grizzly Bear Reintroduction." National Wildlife Federation: http://www.nwf.org/nwf/grizzly/index.html Rembert, Tracey C., and Jim Motavalli. "Troubled Homecoming: Through Reintroduction Programs, Predators are Returning to the Wild, Challenging our Expectations and Fears." E March/April 1998: 28+. Robbins, Jim. "Scientists are Disputing the Fate of the Grizzly." New York Times 23 June 1998: B12. Stevens, William K. "Debating Nature of Nature in Yellowstone." New York Times 23 June 1998: B9+. United States. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 1997. http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly/ ___. ___. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem: Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 1997. Waller, John S., and Richard D. Mace. "Grizzly Bear Habitat Selection in the Swan Mountains, Montana." Journal of Wildlife Management 61 (1997): 1032-39. Wuethrich, Bernie. "Wayward Grizzlies Spark Debate." Science 25 October 1996: 493. Young, Donald D., Jr., and Thomas R. McCabe. "Grizzly Bear Predation Rates on Caribou Calves in Northeastern Alaska." Journal of Wildlife Management 61 (1997): 1056-66. ___. "Grizzly Bears and Calving Caribou: What is the Relation with River Corridors?" Journal of Wildlife Management 62 (1998): 255-61.

INTERNET SITES

The American Grizzly Bear http://home.att.net/~jrmusgrove/index.htm Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly/ Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem: Final Environmental Impact Statement - March 2000 http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly/FEIS2000/ Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc/ Return of the Grizzly -- Defenders of Wildlife http://www.defenders.org/bitter.html Acknowledgements: This case was developed as part of a National Science Foundation-sponsored Case Studies in Science Workshop (NSF Award #9752799) held at the State University of New York at Buffalo on June 1-5, 1998. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly_Notes.html Page 5 downloaded 8/8/07 Grizzly bear

Conservation status

Endangered Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Ursidae Genus: Ursus Species: U. arctos Subspecies: U. a. horribilis Trinomial name Ursus arctos horribilis (Ord, 1815)

Range map

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly_Notes.html Page 6 downloaded 8/8/07 The Bear Facts: Grizzly Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem by Grace A. Wang School of Forest Resources The Pennsylvania State University

BACKGROUND

Few species have captured the imagination of the American public like the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis). It is one of the largest North American land mammals, with male grizzly bears often reaching 7 feet tall, weighing 300- 600 pounds, and female grizzly bears 200-400 pounds. They are an omnivorous species, with a diet that includes elk carcasses, sometimes sheep, berries, and whitebark pine seeds, among other items.

Although grizzly bears historically ranged throughout most of the western United States, habitat loss and excessive human-caused mortality have drastically reduced numbers of this species. It is estimated that prior to European settlement there were ~50,000 grizzly bears; it is estimated that only 800-1,000 grizzly bears exist on approximately 2 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 states now. Biologically, grizzly bears have the second slowest reproductive rate of all North American mammals, making it difficult for them to rebound from threats to their survival. Females reach maturity at 4-9 years, and generally give birth to two cubs every three years.

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The ESA declared national policy "that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this [Act]." The ESA defines an endangered species as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." A threatened species is defined as "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Four key sections of the ESA provide its basic structure:

 A formal listing process used to identify threatened and endangered species, protect critical habitats, and the drafting of recovery plans.  Federal agency consultation with the appropriate Secretary (Interior or Commerce) before taking any action that might affect a listed species.  Prohibition of the "taking" of listed species and damage to their habitats. The term "take" means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."  Penalties for violations of the ESA.

Grizzly bears were listed as a threatened species in the lower 48 states in 1975. At that time, the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) was listed as one of three areas where grizzly bears were known or thought to exist and where recovery should be emphasized. Earlier in the 20th century, grizzly bears were widespread inhabitants of the Bitterroot Mountains in central Idaho and western Montana, although the last verified death of a grizzly bear in the BE occurred in 1932 and the last tracks were observed in 1946. No verified tracks or sightings have been documented in more than 50 years, and the best scientific evidence available indicates that there are no grizzly bears in the BE at this time. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly.html downloaded 8/8/07 Figure 1. Map of Grizzly Bear Ecosystems in the northern Rocky Mountains.

Grizzly Bear ecosystems Bitterroot Ecosystem

THE RECOVERY PLAN

In 1982, a federal grizzly bear recovery plan by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) called for the evaluation of the BE as a potential recovery area. Ensuing studies indicated sufficient habitat existed in the BE to support 200-400 grizzly bears. In 1991, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee endorsed the BE as a recovery area and authorized the FWS to pursue grizzly bear recovery. The ultimate long-term goal of the plan is removal of the grizzly bear from threatened status in the lower 48 states.

THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The FWS released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in 1997, describing four alternatives that represent different approaches to grizzly bear recovery and management in the Bitterroot Ecosystem of central Idaho and western Montana:

Alternative 1. Reintroduction of a Nonessential Experimental Population Alternative Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act provides the authority to designate certain populations of listed species as nonessential "experimental populations" to promote species conservation. This designation is more flexibe than "endangered" and allows private landowners some flexibility in dealing with reintroduced arenas. The goal of this alternative is to accomplish grizzly bear recovery by reintroducing grizzly bears designated as a nonessential experimental population to the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Central to this is creation of a Citizen Management Committee (CMC) to conduct grizzly bear management within the framework of local concerns. The CMC would be given the task of managing this grizzly bear population.

Alternative 2. The No Action Alternative - Natural Recovery The goal of this alternative is to allow grizzly bears to expand from their current range in north Idaho and northwestern Montana southward into central Idaho and western Montana, and to recolonize the BE. Ultimately, the goal is natural recovery of grizzly bears in the BE.

Alternative 3. The No Grizzly Bear Alternative http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly.html downloaded 8/8/07 The purpose of this alternative is to prevent grizzly bears from naturally re-establishing in the BE. Congress would need to pass legislation to remove grizzly bears in central Idaho and portions of western Montana from the list of threatened species. The FWS would stop all funding and management activity toward bear research, education, and management in central Idaho. The states of Idaho and Montana would remove grizzly bears from the protection of state law within the BE.

Alternative 4. Reintroduction of a Threatened Population with Full Protection of the ESA The goal of this alternative is to achieve recovery through reintroduction and extensive habitat protection and enhancement to promote natural recovery. The grizzly bear would have full status as a threatened species under the provisions of the ESA.

These four alternatives represent different approaches to grizzly bear recovery and management. They were developed for evaluation in the DEIS because they encompass public concerns raised during scoping and to reflect a full range of alternatives. Two alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) do not necessarily meet the purpose of and need for action, but were included in the DEIS to be responsive to public comments, to provide a full range of alternatives for consideration, and to meet the requirements of NEPA. All four alternatives reflect public comments and suggestions identified through issue and alternative scoping.

Figure 2. Grizzly Bear Recovery Alternatives in the Bitterroot Ecosystem.

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly.html downloaded 8/8/07 STAKEHOLDERS / PUBLIC CONCERNS

 Governor Phil Batt of Idaho and Senator Conrad Burns of Montana argue that grizzly reintroduction will lock up the region's timber reserves while jeopardizing the safety of constituents in the area: "Reintroduction will pose a significant public safety risk for Idaho's citizens, and many tourists who visit our wilderness areas."  Ravalli County Commissioner (Montana) Jerry Allen tells the federal government: "We don't want the bears. I'm worried about the livestock and about the safety of my neighbors."  Some comments from other local citizens:

"Grizzly bears attack people, and unlike the Fish & Wildlife Service, I do not believe there is an acceptable level of injury and death caused by grizzly bears."

"We do not need our forests and other public lands shut down and put people out of jobs to encourage the grizzlies to roam into our backyards and endanger our lives."

 Logging representative Jim Riley: "I don't claim to speak for all loggers; but in general we are not afraid of living with grizzlies. What we fear most is having the federal government come in here and shut down traditional forms of resource extraction like logging to accommodate bears."  The environmental group Defenders of Wildlife supports reintroduction of the grizzly bears as an "experimental population," and would like to set aside ~5,785 square miles of territory, allowing logging and grazing in the outlying areas. More significantly, their plan allows for a team of "citizen managers" to voice local concerns. Hank Fischer of Defenders says: "This is a struggle between the purists and the pragmatists-- and we're the pragmatists. Any plan that puts people second to bears just isn't going to fly. If you don't have the support of locals, these wildlife populations simply won't survive."  The environmental group Alliance for the Wild Rockies champions a plan that would give full protection under the ESA, allowing federal biologists to manage reintroduction while keeping politics at bay. They call for setting aside ~21,645 square miles of territory for reintroduction. Alliance executive director Mike Bader counters the Defenders plan: "The only thing that got compromised in [the Defenders] plan is the grizzly bear; introducing grizzlies without significant habitat protection is like boarding them on a sinking ship."

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What are the major issues--economic, safety, animal rights, civil rights--for each stakeholder group? 2. Are the opinions of local citizens more or less important than those of decisions makers in Washington D.C.? Why or why not? 3. Given that reintroduction will occur on federal public lands, how important are the opinions of all citizens? Do you think that non-local citizens should have a say in grizzly bear reintroduction? 4. How important are local financial concerns in the decision to reintroduce grizzly bears? And which businesses are most likely to benefit or lose? 5. Taking in all factors, which alternative truly benefits the grizzly bear population? 6. What are the ecological concerns related to grizzly bear reintroduction? 7. Which is more important in this case: the process or the outcome? 8. How might grizzly bear reintroduction affect the different extractive industries (mining, timber, grazing)?

9. Why might different environmental groups disagree?

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly.html downloaded 8/8/07 REFERENCES

Blanchard, Bonnie M., and Richard R. Knight. "Biological Consequences of Relocating Grizzly Bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem." Journal of Wildlife Management 59 (1995): 560-65. Eberhardt, L.L., and R.R. Knight. "How Many Grizzlies in Yellowstone?" Journal of Wildlife Management 60 (1996): 416-21. Fischer, Hank. "Bears and the Bitterroot." Defenders Winter 1996/97:16+. Garshelis, David L. "The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959- 1992." American Scientist January/February 1997: 72. "Historic Plan Paves Way for Grizzlies' Return to Idaho's Bitterroot Region." National Wildlife December/January 1996: 60+. "Montanans Learning to Live with Grizzly Bears." Environmental News Network 29 September 1998: http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/1998/09/092998/bears25.asp Oko, Dan. "Dispatches: The Debate That Roared." Outside March 1998: http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/0398/9803dispwildlife.html Peacock, Doug. "Making the West Safe for Grizzlies." Audubon November/December 1997: 46+. "The Possible Link." http://www.defenders.org/defenders/grizgene.html Quammen, David. "Island of the Bears." Audubon March/April 1995: 82+. "Grizzly Bear Reintroduction." National Wildlife Federation: http://www.nwf.org/nwf/grizzly/index.html Rembert, Tracey C., and Jim Motavalli. "Troubled Homecoming: Through Reintroduction Programs, Predators are Returning to the Wild, Challenging our Expectations and Fears." E March/April 1998: 28+. Robbins, Jim. "Scientists are Disputing the Fate of the Grizzly." New York Times 23 June 1998: B12. Stevens, William K. "Debating Nature of Nature in Yellowstone." New York Times 23 June 1998: B9+. United States. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 1997. ___. ___. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem: Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 1997. Waller, John S., and Richard D. Mace. "Grizzly Bear Habitat Selection in the Swan Mountains, Montana." Journal of Wildlife Management 61 (1997): 1032-39. Wuethrich, Bernie. "Wayward Grizzlies Spark Debate." Science 25 October 1996: 493. Young, Donald D., Jr., and Thomas R. McCabe. "Grizzly Bear Predation Rates on Caribou Calves in Northeastern Alaska." Journal of Wildlife Management 61 (1997): 1056-66. ___. "Grizzly Bears and Calving Caribou: What is the Relation with River Corridors?" Journal of Wildlife Management 62 (1998): 255-61. Image Credits:: Grizzly Bear: from the Summary of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993. Figure 1: Redrawn by Jim Stamos (UB Dept. of Biological Sciences) from Chapter 2, figure 2-3 of the Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 1997.

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly.html downloaded 8/8/07 Figure 2: Redrawn by Jim Stamos (UB Dept. of Biological Sciences) from Chapter 2, figure 2-2 of the Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 1997.

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/grizzly.html downloaded 8/8/07