Wildlife

A Trophic Trickle? Wolves, the Yellowstone Ecosystem, and the Power of a Story: NY Times Article

by

We kind of knew that Yellowstone and wolves were more complicated than the “all is well with wolves” idea.  Perhaps people went a bit overboard with their “carnivolatry,” but most of us took with several grains of salt..as has been discussed previously at TSW.  It’s interesting when folks like the Times discover that there is more than meets the eye to some stories that have been accepted as gospel for some time.

The wolves’ return and predatory dominance was believed to have had a widespread effect known as a trophic cascade, by decreasing grazing and restoring and expanding forests, grasses and other wildlife. It supposedly even changed the course of rivers as streamside vegetation returned.

Yellowstone’s dramatic transformation through the reintroduction of wolves has become a global parable for how to correct out-of-balance ecosystems.

In recent years, however, new research has walked that story back. Yes, stands of aspen and willows are thriving again — in some places. But decades of damage from elk herds’ grazing and trampling so thoroughly changed the landscape that large areas remain scarred and may not recover for a long time, if ever.

Wolf packs, in other words, are not magic bullets for restoring ecosystems.

“I would say it’s exaggerated, greatly exaggerated,” said Thomas Hobbs, a professor of natural resource ecology at Colorado State University and the lead author of a long-term study that adds new fuel to the debate over whether Yellowstone experienced a trophic cascade.

“You could argue a trophic trickle maybe,” said Daniel Stahler, the park’s lead wolf biologist who has studied the phenomenon. “Not a trophic cascade.”

Not only is the park’s recovery far less robust than first thought, but the story as it has been told is more complex, Dr. Hobbs said.

But the legend of the wolves’ influence on the park persists.

A person could ask “if good things happened with more elk killed by wolves, could they have also happened with more elk killed by other predators, including humans?”

Once elk numbers dwindled, willows and aspens returned along rivers and streams and flourished. The beaver, an engineer of ecosystems, reappeared, using the dense new growth of willows for both food and construction materials. Colonies built new dams, creating ponds that enhanced stream habitats for birds, fish, grizzlies and other bears as well as promoting the growth of more willows and spring vegetation.

But wolves were only one piece of a larger picture, argue Dr. Hobbs and other skeptics of a full-blown trophic cascade at Yellowstone. Grizzly bears and humans played a role, too. For eight years after wolves re-entered the park, hunters killed more elk than the wolves did.

“The other members of the predator guild increased, and human harvest outside of the park has been clearly shown to be responsible for the decline in elk numbers the first 10 years after the wolves were introduced,” Dr. Hobbs said.

And wolf-resistant ungulates are growing in numbers..

The changes attributed to the presence of stalking wolves, some research showed, weren’t only the result of fewer elk, but of a change in elk behavior called “the ecology of fear.” Scientists suggested that the big ungulates could no longer safely hang out along river or stream banks and eat everything in sight. They became extremely cautious, hiding in places where they could be vigilant. That allowed a return of vegetation in those places.

Dr. Hobbs and others contend that subsequent research has not borne that theory out.

Another overlooked factor is that around the same time wolves were returning, 129 beavers were reintroduced by the U.S. Forest Service onto streams north of the park. So it wasn’t just wolf predation on elk and the subsequent return of wolves that enabled an increase in beavers, experts say.

Some researchers say the so-called trophic cascade and rebirth of streamside ecosystems would have been far more robust if it weren’t for the park’s growing bison herd. The bison population is at an all-time high — the most recent count last summer found nearly 5,000 animals. Much larger than elk, bison are less likely to be vulnerable to wolves, which numbered 124 this winter.

The park’s bison, some researchers say, are overgrazing and otherwise seriously damaging the ecosystems — allowing the spread of invasive species and trampling and destroying native plants.

Beschta vs. Geremia

“There is a hyperabundant bison population in our first national park,” said Robert Beschta, a professor emeritus of forest ecosystems at Oregon State University who has studied Yellowstone riparian areas for 20 years. He pointed to deteriorating conditions along the Lamar River from bison overgrazing.

“They are hammering it,” Mr. Beschta said. “The Lamar ranks right up there with the worst cattle allotments I’ve seen in the American West. Willows can’t grow. Cottonwoods can’t grow.”

A warmer and drier climate, he said, is making matters worse.

Such opinions, however, are not settled science. Some park experts believe that the presence of thousands of bison enhances park habitats because of something called the Green Wave Hypothesis.

Chris Geremia, a park biologist, is an author of a paper that makes the case that a large numbers of bison can stimulate plant growth by grazing grasses to the length of a suburban lawn. “By creating these grazing lawns bison and other herbivores — grasshoppers, elk — these lawns are sustaining more nutritious food for these animals,” he said.

Dr. Geremia contends that a tiny portion — perhaps one-tenth of one percent — of the park may be devoid of some plants. “The other 99.9 percent of those habitats exists in all different levels of willow, aspen and cottonwood,” he said.

I thought the comments were interesting.. the idea of some is that if bison could just roam freely, everything would be fine.  It’s bad western ranchers, and if they were removed, everything would be hunky-dory.  Reminds me a bit of previous peoples removed from the landscape with all kinds of good intentions.   I didn’t see any comments that a park with 4.5 mill tourists per year (2023) is not really a “natural” place and that Parkies are doing the best they can to find the sweet spot at recreating Indigenous-influenced  ecosystems without Indigenous people. Lots of mentions of “balance of nature”, and “what’s the point of the article, no one ever said wolves would solve all the problems caused by humans.”

I do know that I heard much about Yellowstone bison and brucellosis when in carpool in DC with a Lands person in the 1990’s, so the controversy has been going on for awhile.

The heavily grazed landscape is why, critics say, some 4,000 bison, also a record, left Yellowstone for Montana in the winter of 2023-24, when an unusually heavy snow buried forage. Because some bison harbor a disease, called brucellosis, that state officials say could infect cattle, they are not welcome outside the park’s borders. (There are no documented cases of transmission between bison and cattle.)

Montana officials say killing animals that may carry disease as they leave the park is the only way to stem the flow. During a hunt that began in the winter of 2023, Native Americans from tribes around the region took part. All told, hunters killed about 1,085 bison; 88 more were shipped to slaughter and 282 were transferred to tribes. This year, just a few animals have left the park.

The Park Service is expected to release a bison management plan in the coming months. It is considering three options: to allow for 3,500 to 5,000 animals, 3,500 to 6,000, or a more natural population that could reach 7,000.

Richard Keigley, who was a research ecologist for the federal Geological Survey in the 1990s, has become an outspoken critic of the park’s bison management.

“They have created this juggernaut where we’ve got thousands of bison and the public believes this is the way things always were,” he said. “The bison that are there now have destroyed and degraded their primary ranges. People have to realize there’s something wrong in Yellowstone.”

Dr. Keigley said the bison population in the park fluctuated in the early years of the park, with about 229 animals in 1967. It has grown steadily since and peaked last year at 5,900.

Yes, managing wildlife in this world, even in National Parks, can be complex and difficult.

New Sage Grouse Draft Plan Released: Incorporates Ideas from Obama and Trump Admin Plans

by

 

This is a great article by Scott Streater of E&E News; fortunately a TSW reader forwarded it to me, as it has a paywall.  It’s pretty comprehensive and hard to excerpt from, but I’ll try.

Here’s the link to the BLM press release, public meetings and the DEIS.  Here’s the BLM’s title and tagline;

BLM proposes stronger greater sage-grouse conservation plans

Analysis uses best available science and lessons learned to benefit species and western communities

I’ll try to hit the main points of the Streater article.

  1. It blends some of the Obama decision and the Trump era decision. Perhaps some horse-trading with western Govs? Or realizing that the 2015 approach doesn’t fit with desired renewable buildout?

In essence, the proposal outlined in a draft environmental impact statement Thursday is a compromise that a BLM news release emphasized draws on “the most successful components” of the Obama administration plans in 2015 that mandated protections for the most sensitive grouse habitat across 10 states and revisions to those plans the Trump administration approved in 2019 that gave states more leeway to greenlight projects near grouse breeding grounds and other sensitive habitat.

2.  Sgamma thinks that it’s an improvement

“It’s positive that the preferred alternative seems to be a blend between the other approaches and prior plans, which indicates that BLM is trying to find a workable balance,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance.

3. WEG and CBD don’t like it.

People familiar with the plan under development at the BLM previously said they expected the proposal to include 11 million “acres of critical environmental concern” to safeguard priority grouse habitat. But the preferred alternative released Thursday did not include ACEC designations, which provide strict land-use regulations that would severely limit livestock grazing, recreation and other activities. Other alternatives, which could still be selected in the final plan, do include the conservation designations.
The proposal would also remove one of the most contentious aspects of the 2015 plans: the designation of 10 million acres of “sagebrush focal areas” considered vital to the bird’s survival, where mining and oil and gas development would be prohibited. These areas will now be managed as priority habitat management areas.

My understanding is that the focal areas were added at the last minute by folks in DC, and stuck in some craws of some State folks who had worked collaboratively on effort.  If you remember from my story on  it, that my source said:

Folks from Garfield County, CO did a FOIA and found out that the changes were associated in time with meetings with various environmental organizations, including Pew. One particular idea added during these last changes was the idea of “focal areas”. The States went ballistic.

The Governors sat down with Secretary Jewell and tried to negotiate.

4. Pew Does Like It

For whatever reason, Pew seems to have an outsized influence on federal decision making under this Admin and also the Obama Admin, so this could be significant.

Marcia Argust, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ U.S. Conservation program, applauded the BLM “for bringing the latest science, including planning for climate impacts, to this round of sage grouse plan updates.”

5. If Grouse don’t like roads and footprints of O&G operations, they probably don’t like roads and footprints of renewable energy and transmission lines.

This has become an issue as the Biden administration works to build renewable energy projects on federal lands as well as the transmission lines needed to carry that green energy to market. BLM press materials announcing the proposal mentioned “clean energy projects” in discussing how the plans will allow for multiple uses “in a manner that limits impacts to sensitive resources and can also help combat climate change — the main driver of greater sage-grouse habitat loss.”

Actually, what the press release says is  “Populations once in the millions now number fewer than 800,000, largely due to habitat loss exacerbated by climate change, such as drought, increasing wildfires, and invasive species.”   Habitat loss seems to be the actual main driver, not climate change.

6.  RMP Amendments Around 2015 Sage Grouse Plans for Transmission Lines.

The BLM this month announced it was exploring amending three federal land-use plans to work around mandates in the 2015 grouse plans limiting the size of transmission lines and their proximity to priority grouse habitat. The BLM concedes it might need to do so in order to approve the 235-mile-long Greenlink North power line in Nevada that’s a Biden administration priority due to renewable energy

Hopefully those transmission lines will be well-maintained..and not cause further fires which are bad for sage grouse.

Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision Litigation

by

I believe the Rio Grande revision is one of only two developed under the 2012 Planning Rule that have been litigated (the Flathead being the other).  Two lawsuits were filed against the Rio Grande in November 2021.  One of them (Defenders of Wildlife v. U. S. Forest Service) was decided a year ago by the district court and is on appeal to the 10th Circuit.  That case is worth some discussion, so here it is.  There has not yet been a district court hearing for the other case (San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council v. Dallas).  (The Colville revised plan litigation involved the previous 1982 planning regulations.)

On January 27, 2023, the district court upheld the Rio Grande revised forest plan’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act and NEPA for Canada lynx.  The judge framed the issue in this case as whether the Forest failed to “protect the lynx by inadequately limiting logging in the Forest under a revised forest plan in violation of the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).”  The court found no violation of ESA in the Biological Opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it summarily dispensed with the NEPA and ESA claims against the Forest Service as being based on “substantially the same arguments.”

The case involves changing forest plan management direction for Canada lynx from that included in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment in response to insect-killed trees and blowdown over a large portion of the Forest.  The opinion asserts at the outset that, “Petitioner’s position is fundamentally flawed for at least three reasons.”  Two of these are troubling.

The court minimizes (or perhaps rejects) the need for ESA consultation on national forest plans because they are “programmatic,” and (citing the BiOp), “no immediate consequences occur directly to Canada lynx caused by the proposed action,” and therefore “implementation cannot be said to jeopardize the lynx directly.”  If plan cannot jeopardize a species, then there should be no need to consult.

These statements and this conclusion would be contrary to national Fish and Wildlife Service policy on consultation on “programmatic” or “tiered” decisions.  Forest plans are decisions that both promote activities that could adversely affect species through desired conditions and objectives, and limit those activities through standards and guidelines.  Consultation on such decisions is based on the effects that would be allowed to occur using the “design standards” in the decision.  There is no requirement that consequences potentially leading to jeopardy be “immediate.”

The court’s conclusion is also at odds with other cases, which emphasized the broad scope of agency “actions” subject to ESA.  The 10th Circuit has determined that, “Much like the promulgation of a regulation, we have little doubt after Norton that the act of approving, amending, or revising a LRMP constitutes “action” under § 7(a)(2) of the ESA.”  Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1154 (2007).  The 9th Circuit held, “RMPs are actions that “may affect” the protected salmon because the plans set forth criteria for harvesting resources within the salmon’s habitat.”  Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1055 (1994).  A requirement to consult on forest plans must presume that there could be some basis for finding substantive violations of ESA, so this court’s finding of a fundamental flaw here seems fundamentally flawed.

A second “fundamental flaw” results from the fact that, “lynx habitat in the Forest amounts to just over 2 percent of the lynx habitat in the contiguous United States,” and “none of that habitat was designated as critical.”  Therefore, “even if the lynx were extirpated in the Forest, that would not significantly affect the status of the lynx across the contiguous United States.”  This raises questions about the effectiveness of applying ESA’s requirements to wide-ranging species if no individual project or even a forest-wide plan could be viewed as capable of causing jeopardy.  This is a reason why the western lynx amendments were applied across ranges of the lynx, and consultation occurred on multiple national forests simultaneously.  The reasoning the court applied here highlights the risk of now disassembling a regional strategy on a forest-by-forest basis.  Doing so on one forest should arguably trigger the need to reinitiate consultation across the range of lynx (in this case the southern Rockies national forests).

This court’s view of ESA highlights the need to challenge species conservation provisions of forest plans under the viability requirement of the 2012 Planning Rule, even for listed species.  The requirements pertaining to species viability must be met based on their probability of persistence in the “plan area.”  Various statements cited by the court would support a conclusion that lynx are not likely to persist on the Rio Grande National Forest plan area over time.  This argues for strict scrutiny of forest plan components that would allow any adverse effects to occur from management activities.  Similar to ESA, the viability requirement contemplates long-term consequences of multiple activities over time, and effects need not be direct or immediate.  (In another context, the court points out that, “the revised forest plan is intended to remain in effect only until about 2036,” but it may be that management actions during the life of this plan would contribute to the “long-term” decline, which is the test applied by the 2012 Planning Rule).

There is a counter-argument that the 2012 Planning Rule applied the viability requirement explicitly only to “species of conservation concern,” which are defined to not include listed species, for which the requirement is to “contribute to recovery.”  However, at the point at which the species recovers, it should immediately become an SCC (see Planning Handbook §12.52d.2.b) and would need to meet the viability requirement.  Regardless, logic requires that what is needed to “contribute to recovery” should be something beyond what is needed to maintain viability after recovery, and that plan components for listed species must at least provide habitat for viable populations.

This outcome would be consistent with court interpretations of the NFMA diversity requirement under the 1982 planning regulations.  When the Forest Service argued that it did not have to meet the viability requirement for listed species, the 9th Circuit found, “The effect of the Forest Service’s position in this litigation, were it to be adopted, would be to reward the Forest Service for its own failures; the net result would be that the less successful the Forest Service is in maintaining viable populations of species as required under its regulations, the less planning it must do for the diversity of wildlife sought by the statute. This is directly contrary to the legislative purpose of the National Forest Management Act.”  Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 301 (1991).  (The San Luis Valley Ecosystem Counsel claims against the Rio Grande plan include NFMA violations for lynx and the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, but relative to the “contribute to recovery” requirement for listed species, and not the viability requirement.)

The third “overarching flaw” appears to derive from judicial deference principles.  The court specifically notes that, “the Court does not find that the presumption of validity that attaches to agency action is overcome merely because the revised forest plan changes the way the SRLA was previously applied in the Forest.”

The remainder of the opinion discusses the scientific rationale provided by the agencies for their effects analysis and decisions, and finds that they properly address questions raised by plaintiffs, and the court was “not persuaded that implementation of the revised forest plan is likely to make conditions worse for the lynx.”  (Perhaps under stricter scrutiny called for by the NFMA plan area viability requirement the court might have been persuaded.)  So maybe the court’s findings of “fundamental flaws” were just window dressing?

On January 17, 2024 the 10th Circuit held a hearing (listen here) in this case.  I have not read the briefs, but the hearing did not discuss the overarching issues reviewed above, so it appears that they are assuming (and apparently the government did not object) that the Rio Grande revised plan could theoretically cause jeopardy to lynx.

The hearing was narrowly focused on two issues, and particularly on the question of whether the northern portion of the Rio Grande should be managed as an area of low lynx use with less protection, as it is in the revised forest plan.  That turned on the question of best available science.  The only research on lynx that included the northern portion (Ivans) concluded that there could be high lynx use.  The Fish and Wildlife Service concluded otherwise based on discussions with unnamed biologists that were not specifically documented.  Importantly, there is no record of the reasons why the Ivans study was not accepted by the FWS (or the Forest Service).  If there were no conflicting information in the record, the unattributed sources might be sufficient, but that is not the case here.  The FWS conclusions could be considered arbitrary.

The second issue was about the importance of the lynx population on the Rio Grande, and/or the importance of the Colorado lynx population to the listed species.  The record indicated that the Rio Grande lynx are important to the Colorado population.  The FWS had also said elsewhere that all six populations in the lower 48 (the listed entity) are important, but then discounted the current importance of the Colorado lynx population because it was not historically important.  Ultimately the question appeared to be whether the FWS properly considered the importance of these lynx in its jeopardy determination for the species.

We await a decision.

 

 

 

New available science for wildlife connectivity

by
National Parks Conservation Association

Federal lands are separated by highways all over the west.  Those highways are a barrier to many species of wildlife, including species listed under the Endangered Species Act and those identified as Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) in national forest planning. Climate change is recognized as increasing the importance of wildlife movements.

Forest Service planning regulations pertaining to designation of SCC require consideration of all threats to the species’ persistence in the plan area, whether or not the threats occur within the plan area or are the result of national forest management.  Often, significant threats to these at-risk species come from outside of the federal lands; one of these is the effect of highways on connectivity.   The Forest Service could improve prospects for some species to persist in the plan area by making it easier for them to get to and from it.  They can do two things to promote that.  They can 1) collaborate with other agencies managing land, wildlife and transportation to identify the most important areas to jointly manage for connectivity, and 2) manage their lands in or near these areas to minimize barriers to wildlife movement, first by recognizing them as such in forest plans.

There’s a new tool from the Center for Landscape Conservation that could help with identifying the important areas consistently across the west.  As with any newly available science, the agencies involved should be looking at this mapping tool and determining whether and how they will use it, and ideally documenting the rationale, especially for disregarding this new information.  National forests should be checking their forest plans to see whether their assigned management areas would make these connectivity areas less attractive to wildlife movement, and amending plans as needed.

The study that produced these maps also found that “1,523 of the CC (“collision and connectivity”) segments (338 mi) have enough collisions to make it more cost-effective to build a wildlife crossing than to do nothing,” and land management agencies should support such efforts and manage their lands to facilitate their use by wildlife.

More on the Nez Perce-Clearwater-Lolo revision (and the Great Burn)

by

Here’s a little more (added to this) on the Nez Perce-Clearwater revised forest plan.  Mostly I wanted to share this graphic of how they are “reaching out” to the public.  They ask an important question:  “What can you do?”  The obvious meaning seems to be what can you do about the forest plan, and the answer for most people is “nothing.”  They say that the plan is in the objection period, but don’t tell us that the only people who can participate are those who have already done so.  They invite us to “learn more,” about this nearly-done deal, which they misleading label as a “draft Forest Management Plan.”  (At the draft EIS stage, the Planning Rule refers to it as the “proposed plan,” and at the objection stage it is just the “plan.)   While they have must have included similar outreach at earlier stages in the process, for those encountering this for the first time, it’s almost disingenuous.

But while I’m at it , there was also another article recently that focused on the State Line Trail, which runs through the Hoodoo Recommended Wilderness Area in the Great Burn between Idaho and Montana.  (I’ve been there but haven’t been directly involved in the planning, so know only what I read.)

“It used to be a marquee backcountry ride for mountain bikers, too. That ended in 2012 when the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, which controls the Idaho side of the trail, approved a new travel management plan that barred bicycles from its portion of the trail. On the Montana side, the Lolo National Forest has long allowed bicycles on the trail.”

A new revised forest plan for the Nez Perce-Clearwater could change that, by determining that bicycles are an appropriate use in the portions of Idaho around the trail, which would mirror access on the Montana side. If the changes in the plan are finalized, possibly later this year, that would set the stage for the Nez Perce-Clearwater to revisit and alter its 2012 travel plan to formally re-allow bicycles on the trail.”

The rationale behind these changes, according to the forest supervisor, don’t seem to include consistency (more on that later):  “We have these types of very primitive, amazing, out in the middle of nowhere experiences that you can get to no matter what your matter of conveyance is.”  No apparent agency recognition that the conveyance is part of the experience for those who encounter it, and for some it makes it feel unpleasantly more like “somewhere.”

One of the supporters added, “It’s a small segment of the sport that this is going to appeal to,” he said. “It’s not that close to Missoula. It’s hard. The trail’s in deteriorating condition. But this opportunity is, for certain people, something they really, really want.” That small segment of certain people (who apparently want to deteriorate the trail even more) must be pretty special to get this kind of personalized attention.

“Some mountain bikers are drawn to remote, rugged, and challenging backcountry trail experiences on wild and raw landscapes,” a group of supporters commented. “These are places where it is uncommon to see other trail users, and where riding requires a high level of physical fitness and technical skill — in many cases it involves pushing a bike instead of riding at all.”  That would be like hiking, wouldn’t it?  So, it’s not like closing the area to this use would exclude these physically fit people from these wild and raw landscapes.  I’ll admit that I don’t understand the rationale of wanting to experience a “wild and raw landscape” on a machine, which (to me) reduces the rawness and wildness of the experience.

The aura of personal opinion and politics behind these wilderness debates is why I focus my energy on other things.  Here there is also talk about snowmobiles and mountain goats, and why mountain goats are treated differently in adjacent national forests.

As for the effects of snowmobiles on mountain goats, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game blamed them for disappearance from one part of this area, but the founder of the Backcountry Sled Patriots says otherwise (citing other research).  The Lolo National Forest cited the negative effect of motorized over-snow machines as reason for designating them a species of conservation concern.  The Nez Perce-Clearwater is not concerned about mountain goats.  The Forest Service minimizes the importance of the areas at issue to mountain goats (though they apparently used to be some places they are not found now).

About the Lolo, Marten, the regional forester, who determines which species are SCC, wrote:

“Compared to other ungulates, the species appears particularly sensitive to human disturbance. Motorized and non-motorized recreation, as well as aerial vehicles, are well documented to affect the species, particularly during winter and kid-rearing season, with impacts ranging from permanent or seasonal (displacement), to changes in behavior and productivity.”

The regional director for ecosystem planning said that she didn’t see the different listing decisions as being in conflict with each other. Rather, she said, they reflect that mountains goats are doing better overall on one forest than the other.  This may be technically/legally possible since SCC are based on persistence in an individual forest plan area.  However, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to manage one national forest to increase the risk to, and to contribute to SCC designation on, another forest.  Moreover, the Planning Handbook states that “species of conservation concern in adjoining National Forest System plan areas” should be considered by the regional forester in making this designation.  This all has kind of an arbitrary ring to it.

As for consistent management across national forest boundaries, The Nez Perce-Clearwater plans to change the shape of the Hoodoo RWA to remove the key snowmobile areas from it, so that boundary between the national forests becomes a boundary for the RWA.  The Forest Service points out that the plan revision process in the hands of forest supervisors, not the regional office.  The forest supervisors disclaim any obligation for consistency, and even suggest that travel planning may produce a different result, and “forest plans and travel management plans are continually updated and amended” so they could change again.  That doesn’t square well with history.  The every-third-of-a-century Forest plan revision should be the time to get it right.  Even if the regional forester doesn’t want to say what the plans must do, that person could simply order them to be consistent along this boundary.

Four Questions Journalists Should Always Ask About Research Studies; and Saved From Disciplinary Encroachment by Western Watersheds

by
Thanks to Wyoming Public Media

 

These days, in several studies we’ve reviewed on The Smokey Wire, it appears that exploring mechanisms is an afterthought, perhaps left to unnamed parties.  What was a basic scientific principle- that correlation is not causation,  seems to be on the verge of being thrown out.   A wide variety of variables.. social and others.. are not found or explored, and thinks which are unlike are lumped together.  In fact, new research has emerged without direct connection to the traditionally involved disciplines.  I think that this is definitely a science “Situation That Shouts Watch Out”.   And I think what we have to be very aware of.. since most journalists are not (this post will helpfully encourage them to be more aware).. is what I call “disciplinary encroachment.”

Anyway, I think this is a great column to illustrate some of my concerns.

1) Framing.  First, look at the proposal and how it’s framed.  Does it seem like it would inform any decisions?  If not, read no further.

2) Data.  Does the data collected (or used without collecting) relate to the question directly? Is this relationship explained clearly? Do they discuss the weaknesses of using these data?

3) Disciplines.  If the study is touching on, say, economics or birds, are economists or bird scientists involved? If wildfire, are wildfire scientists involved?

4) Correlation is Not Causation. For the same reasons this has always been true. Correlations can be tested by designed experiments.  But those would tend to be carried out by experts in the field (see number 3).

Not to be an Old Person, but these were values upheld by fields in forest science at one time.  If we are changing those scientific community values, I think we should announce the fact, so the public can be clued in.

Sammy Roth of the LA Times, one of my favorite reporter,  didn’t seem to notice that it might be odd for a post-doc economist at the University of Geneva to study birds in the US. Note that Sammy wrote this article as a “column” which I think might mean “opinion piece” and not an ordinary article.  My view is that when reporters write both op-eds and news articles on the same subjects, it does not lead to confidence in the objectivity of the products.  See the James Bennet piece on how this has become murky in some outlets.

Erik Katovich, an environmental economist and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Geneva, had been following all the news coverage of wind power and bird deaths, and he feared it was being “weaponized by those opposed to renewable energy.” A longtime birder himself — he grew up in Minnesota bird-watching with his dad — he wanted to know if the harm to avian life from wind energy development in California, Iowa and other states was getting blown out of proportion.

*************

As even those of us non-ornithologist know who follow this, different species respond differently.  Avoiding sites and getting killed are different things..eagles, sage grouse are all different.

So like any good scholar, he ran the numbers.

Katovich turned to data from the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, an annual effort dating back to 1900 during which tens of thousands of volunteers methodically record bird sightings at consistent locations around the world. Last winter’s count produced more than 36 million sightings of 671 bird species in the United States alone.

In a clever bit of science, Katovich compared the Christmas Bird Count numbers with data showing where wind turbines were built in America’s lower 48 states between 2000 and 2020. He did the same comparison for bird counts and new oil and gas extraction in shale fields — a process defined by the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

His peer-reviewed study was published last month. The conclusions are fascinating.

Katovich found that wind energy development had no statistically significant effect on bird counts, or on the diversity of avian species within five kilometers of a Christmas Bird Count site. Fracking, on the other hand, did have an impact. The drilling of shale oil and gas wells “reduces the total number of birds counted in subsequent years by 15%,” Katovich wrote in the study.

But no one, as far as I know,  was concerned about bird counts, they were concerned about critters like eagles and sage grouse.  See how that works when the framing is not clear at the outset? Sleight of science. And get this conclusion:

In other words: Oil and gas drilling is worse for birds than wind power.

That’s a pretty grandiose conclusion from one study.  So let’s back up and go back to framing, which was apparently “is oil and gas drilling “worse” for birds than wind power?”.  I don’t think anyone has this as a choice, and in fact I’ve seen both turbines and oil and gas facilities in the same general area.  I don’t recall a single BLM EIS that compares those two alternatives.  Then.. there are a lot of bird species.  I don’t know of any eagles that have been shredded by oil and gas facilities, so which species count more? And what if wind needs new transmission lines?

Can you imagine a study that amalgamates.. say.. mammals?  A more useful question perhaps would be “how can O&G or wind have fewer impacts on different bird species?” Which, of course, bird scientists are “avi”dly studying..

Here’s what Sammy has to say:

But to my mind, his results are a sign that we pay too much attention to bird-related criticisms of wind energy — probably in part because those criticisms are trumpeted by right-wing provocateurs, including some funded by fossil fuel industry money.

This is where it gets kind of funny.  Fortunately, Roth checked with various National Audubon people.

They told me Katovich probably underestimated the harm to birds from wind energy, in part because he included all turbines within five kilometers of Audubon bird count locations. Prior research has found that wind farms are much more likely to kill or injure birds that spend time right near the turbines.

I don’t think anyone can argue that birds need to be close to turbines to be injured or killed by them.

Fortunately, Sammy happened to also ask Erik Molvar of Western Watersheds. If he hadn’t met Erik.. I guess we wouldn’t have gotten this (more accurate) side of the story.

Molvar, who leads a conservation group called the Western Watersheds Project, offered several criticisms of the new study.

For one thing, the Audubon bird counts are done by volunteers, meaning the data aren’t perfect. Also, Katovich didn’t analyze the number of birds of each species recorded at each location — a crucial measure of biodiversity, Molvar said via email.

“A bird count that records one cardinal gets exactly the same weight as a count that records 250 cardinals,” he wrote.

Molvar also pointed out that wind farms and fossil fuel extraction can affect birds in different ways. Wind farms are more likely to kill birds than displace them. And some birds are more sensitive to wind farms than others. “Extreme habitat specialists” such as sage grouse — the focus of my first meeting with Molvar — could suffer greatly even as other species get by fine.

************

When I ran those criticisms past Katovich, he responded gracefully, describing them as “thoughtful and informed” and agreeing that several issues he examined could use further research. He also noted that in the same way his study could be missing some of the damage to bird populations from wind energy, it could be underestimating the harm from oil and gas, too.

But why wouldn’t you ask bird scientists.. about birds and how to measure their populations and so on, what we know about how they respond to O&G and wind installations?  Certainly wind folks collect monitoring data.

As we shall see with other studies, disciplinary encroachment is not unusual.

Oh, but the funny part. If you circle back to “But to my mind, his results are a sign that we pay too much attention to bird-related criticisms of wind energy — probably in part because those criticisms are trumpeted by right-wing provocateurs, including some funded by fossil fuel industry money.”  And we have to wonder whether anyone thinks Western Watersheds are closet “right-wing provocateurs”  or closet right-wingers (just kidding!).

Building Trust or Not: Colorado’s Christmas Wolf Kerfuffle

by
Photo from Lakota Wolf Preserve

Happy New Year everyone!

I’ve been thinking about trust, mostly with regard to the use of prescribed fire and managed fire WFU or Fire With Benefits (FWB).  Over the holidays, ten wolves were released in Colorado.

FWIW, I think they could have handled it better, trust-wise, and maybe some lessons could be learned from their efforts.  First, let’s take a look at Cat Urbiquit’s reporting.  The “invited guests” part, and the timing with the “Wolf Update” .. I don’t think the FS on its worst days would have done either.  Transparency, accountability and meaningful involvement yield trust. Parties to which the affected communities are not invited.. held while they are invited elsewhere. It’s a bit creepy, really, to me.

Step 2: Private Party

Colorado Public Radio reported that the first of the wolf releases was kept secret from all but about 45 invited guests including Governor Polis, his husband, and top wolf advocates from around Colorado, as well as a few representatives of the media.

According to the Colorado news pool report of the event, “The crowd watched in awed silence, then some hugged each other and low murmurs started up. … When it all ended, viewers let out their breaths and small applause broke out.”

The release location had been kept secret, the pool report noted, because state wildlife officials “may reuse the release site and is concerned about protestors or the public attempting to stop or watch future releases.” Within a few hours, the location was posted on a hand-written sign outside a post office not far from the release site.

Meanwhile, two counties away in Craig, Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials were making presentations to ranchers at a previously scheduled “Wolf Update for Livestock Producers” meeting hosted by Colorado State University Extension. Steamboat Radio reported, “Halfway through the meeting, CPW Area Manager Kris Middledorf told the ranchers that five wolves had just been released a few hours earlier, onto public land in Grand County.” When 9News contacted local elected officials (mayor, county commissioners and legislator) and learned none had been told about the release beforehand.

Urbigkit is fairly supportive of CPW’s approach as in this op-ed piece.

The state wildlife agency was between a rock and a hard place in moving this program forward by the imposed deadline and hurried to make the best of a less-than-desirable situation. The agency had to make choices between hard postures on opposing sides, eventually selecting moderate options. Nothing would make everyone happy.

Colorado was banking on other states to cooperate with its plans, only to learn that most weren’t going to cooperate. Oregon agreed to provide wolves to Colorado, but when it came to sourcing the wolves, all but one came from packs that were involved in livestock depredations (something  that was obviously problematic).

Unfortunately, Colorado wasn’t up front with that information, so when it became public the rosy optics of the wolf release were tainted.

Instead of being forthright with the reasons why those wolves were selected (that the voters had imposed a strict deadline and no wolves were available that weren’t from packs that hadn’t already been involved in livestock depredations) and outlining how it weighed the ramifications, the administration was silent.

When the information became public and caused the predictable controversy, a resident of the governor’s mansion attempted to discredit the reporter who had revealed the details and told the public that “everything you need to know” about the wolf release was in the government press release.

Nothing sets off alarm bells like someone in power (or in this case, power-adjacent) telling the public that all they need to know comes from a government press release.

Which makes me wonder if Colorado has the only elected official’s spouse that goes after specific journalists on Facebook? I have no idea how common that is. Cat noting that CPW was between a rock and a hard place and had to make a series of perhaps suboptimal decisions makes me think that perhaps wildlife management by initiative is not the best idea.

I also wonder whether simply treating those directly negatively affected respectfully.. giving the ranchers a heads-up; perhaps involving both sets of ranchers (Oregon and Colorado) in picking the wolves; issuing a press release simply stating they had done the best they could…

So what is it?  Either CPW, the DNR, the Govs Office or some combo doesn’t care about the communities impacted by their policies? They care but don’t have good trust-building/communication skills?  Individuals do have those skills but are overruled by others higher in the food chain?  Perhaps the State should do a lessons learned, like the FS did with prescribed fire; at least that would send the message that they care about building trust with these citizens of Colorado.

****************************

More details for those interested in depredation, packs and lethal removal in Oregon and Colorado are below.

Meanwhile apparently CPW is refusing to remove non-reintroduced wolves that have been killing cattle, dogs and sheep. Apparently there are only two left of these left, so CPW told rancher Gittleson

“After consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has made the  determination not to lethally remove these two wolves at this time. The division considered the entire history of depredation events in your area, including the most recent history of depredation events in November and December of 2023. Our assessment considered the change in pack dynamics that took place over the preceding year when most of the pack left the area and did not return. With only two of the original wolves remaining, the number and frequency of events has dropped in 2023. “

So CPW seems to be saying, “you need to take more losses because folks in Wyoming have been shooting them.” It seems like it would be in everyone’s interest to not let folks kill wolves that don’t attack livestock (parts of Wyoming) and let folks kill the ones attacking livestock.

In that vein, I thought that this was interesting from CPW.

CPW defended their selection of source wolves from Oregon, saying in a statement there were two depredation events by members of the Five Points Pack in July 2023. The state of Oregon has a Wolf Management Plan that details how to respond to livestock depredation and per the plan, ODFW provided the producer with a lethal removal permit after they requested it. The producer’s agent lethally removed four wolves from the pack in early August. The pack has not depredated since. This change in pack behavior and the lack of current depredations met CPW criteria for accepting the animals.

According to a statement, CPW teams in Oregon passed on several larger and easier-to-access packs because they had recent depredation or had a chronic or ongoing depredation history.

But not all these wolves were from the Five Points..

According to Oregon wolf depredation records, Five Points Pack wolves injured one calf and killed another in separate depredations in July of 2023; killed a cow on Dec. 5, 2022; and injured a 900-pound yearling heifer on July 17, 2022. The Noregaard Pack was involved in the confirmed killing of a calf and one possible kill in June, the Desolation Pack was involved in the confirmed kill of a steer in September and an attack on two calves in May; and two wolves came from the Wenaha Pack that had confirmed kills in September and October. One wolf released into Colorado was not associated with a pack.

So Oregonians get lethal removal permits and it sounds like Coloradans don’t.  That’s not a trust-building thing either.

According to Cat’s article:

CPW’s Technical Working Group (TWG) on the reintroduction program wrote this into its final recommendations to the agency: “No wolf should be translocated that has a known history of chronic depredation, and sourcing from geographic areas with chronic depredation events should not occur.”

The TWG wrote: “There is nuance in determining depredation habits, with consideration of trends in the behavior of an individual and a pack. If a wolf is depredating livestock, the pack it belongs to is likely to depredate as well; additionally, if a pack is depredating, it is difficult to exclude one individual as non-depredating. A known wolf or pack of wolves that have been identified as chronic depredators by the source location should not be used for translocation to Colorado.” (Citations omitted)

As all of us former bureaucrats know, “should” leaves the agency flexibility.  But once the CPW knew it had to go that way,  better communications it seems to me (contacting key folks in the ranching community) even with bad news, would lead to more trust than not telling and ranting at the journalist who investigates.

 

The Endangered Species Act turns 50

by

You can read any number of articles right now about this that say ESA was adopted by a nearly unanimous Congress and signed by President Nixon on December 28, 1973.  Its supporters find success in its protection of 99% of the species listed from extinction, while critics complain that only 3% have been recovered.  To me, that’s apples vs oranges, because it is much easier for a law to stop bad things from happening than to make good things happen.  I’d love to see those who complain about ESA out there arguing for more money to implement recovery plans.  (And I fail to see the logic of opposing additional listings because recovery is unlikely, when recovery without listing is even less likely.)

But I was curious about what the Forest Service might have to say about this momentous anniversary, and this posting showed up on their website.  It’s written about California, but must represent the agency’s perspective.  The current priority is evident in the second paragraph:

Large, extremely hot fires have ripped through many of these lands, charring if not destroying habitat crucial to species survival. To help reduce the risk of large, devastating fires, the Forest Service is working to remove vegetation that could feed a fire and is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to simultaneously support the conservation of listed species.

That would be listed species that depend on “vegetation that could feed a fire,” which would be removed.  We’ve seen that with spotted owls, the Fish and Wildlife says this should mean focusing fuel reduction projects on areas that are less important to the species.  It would be interesting to hear about how this approach is being implemented through agency policy, forest plans, and/or implementation strategies.  This explanation by the Forest Service falls a little short of a “strategy” for accomplishing this.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the species program, often partners with the Forest Service on steps to protect species listed under the act. Collaborative efforts carry intertwined goals forward. Wildlife specialists and biologists from each agency review project plans, survey forests for species populations, collect data, and analyze the best available science. The Forest Service often includes wildlife conservation measures in as part of land management planning, which means on-the-ground activities needed to increase forest resilience align with the needs of wildlife.

For example, specific types, sizes and heights of trees are left in areas of a forest known to be actively used as nesting or denning sites by threatened or endangered species. The Forest Service plans work to occur during times of the year that will not disrupt key life stages, such as mating season or when adults are caring for young. The Fish and Wildlife Service reviews these plans before work is started to ensure that species needs are being met.

I like that they recognize the importance of forest plan standards as a key tool for protecting species, but I’d like to know more about “Collaborative efforts carry intertwined goals forward.”

 

Compassion with a Twist of Anthropocentrism: And A Dive into Carnivorism

by

 

Do their friends miss them? Do they miss their friends?

I’ve been thinking how often in news stories, and in public life, we are told implicitly or explicitly that some people and critters are deserving of compassion and not others.  Take OHV folks who would prefer not to have roads closed.  Or the people who have jobs at a uranium mill or a biomass plant- some news stories focus on some people (those potentially harmed) and not on others (those potentially harmed by its absence).  Now I’m not saying it’s wrong to focus on certain people, but I think we should pay attention to whose stories are left out.

There are two reasons.  First, there is no limit on compassion. It’s not as if we have some for person or group  x, there will be less for person or group  y.  If you do feel that, there are traditional spiritual ways to open up to acquire more compassion energy, and that’s a very different discussion.

Second, some will imply that if you feel compassion for x people, that leads directly to a certain policy choice, which of course it doesn’t.  For example, if you feel compassion for people around some infrastructure (wind turbine, uranium mine, biomass plant), there are a wide array of regulations that might be adopted.

Now our journalism friends have been taught that they need to engage our emotions, in many cases compassion for individuals or groups, but sometimes they leave out other individuals or groups and go directly from their own chosen circle of compassion to a specific policy outcome.  And to my mind, many perspectives and policy options are not presented.

**********************

So for right now, though, we have the five Oregon wolves recently reintroduced to western Colorado (in the depths of winter).  It was a politically contentious idea, driven by urban folks druthers with consequences for rural folks, and to me the oddest thing was that the goals did not change when it turned out that wolves were already coming down from Wyoming on their own volition.  So to me, this seemed as yet another unnecessary sharp stick in the eye to rural folks. For me, disturbing Oregon wolves  (is different from allowing wolves to naturally repopulate Colorado.

Plus our friends of CBD had this to say last spring about Oregon wolves not doing so well.

PORTLAND, Ore.— Oregon’s wolf population increased by two confirmed animals in 2021 — from 173 to 175 wolves — according to a report released today by the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife. There were 21 reported packs in 2021, while the number of breeding pairs decreased by one for a total of 16.

This small population increase comes after a tragic year that saw eight gray wolves killed by deliberate poisoning in northeast Oregon. State officials themselves killed another eight wolves in 2021 over conflicts with livestock.

I’d like to anthropomorphize a bit. So you know,  peer-reviewed literature says its OK and does not cause “significant misconceptions”.

Now if I were a wolf, making a living in eastern Oregon, happy and accustomed to my pack dynamics, surrounded by wolves I know and like, knowing where elk and deer are likely to be.. knowing where water is, knowing what ranches and highways to avoid, would I want to be dumped off in western Colorado in the winter with other wolves unknown to me? Not.  Why are you doing this to us, I might ask?  Oh, because some people have an idea.. and they couldn’t get wolves from closer states, so … we picked you.  You see, these peoples’ ideas about “the balance of nature” “keystone species” “apex predators” (mountain lions, you aren’t doing the job..)  and the timing (no we haven’t had them around for 70 years, but we can’t wait for natural processes, because…. some humans don’t want to).   Will they bring Oregon diseases to Colorado canines? Will they be susceptible to diseases Colorado canines carry?

I’m mostly a fan of the folks at Colorado Parks and Wildlife, but driven by a ballot initiative they might not have been able to consider the latter two questions. But back to critters.  Whom we care about. But some to quote Orwell “are more equal than others.”

If we could interview coyotes and mountain lions, they might say “hey, we’re carnivores too.. sure we’re not exactly the same niche, but we think we’re doing fine right now; why do they count more than us?”

As to the elk and deer, “hey, you guys are wildlife too, but you don’t count as much because of some peoples’ ideas. It’s actually better for you as a species to have more animals hunting and killing you on the landscape.. because maybe they will kill the sick along with the unlucky.  Your well-being is sacrificed for the good of the population- and well, some people have this idea about “balance of nature” and so on, and it’s more important than your well-being.”

As for cows, sheep, livestock guardian dogs, domestic dogs and others.. sure being ripped apart or killed is not good for you, but maybe you shouldn’t be there anyway. Besides, some people have this idea that it’s better for an abstraction.. “the ecosystem”..

Then there’s a narrative where elk fear is really good because it changes their behavior and that’s good for other species.  Again, the individual sacrificed for the whole.species, ecosystem?

My own experience with safe places as a college and graduate student, and unsafe places, is that it’s a much easier life in many ways to be in a safe place.  Aside from alertness and stress, there’s decision making (should I go to the library after dark?).  There was also time spent reviewing the list of crimes and locations and trying to discern patterns and adapt to them.   My college roommate was mugged on the way to the Computer Center.. (yes there was a building that housed The Computer) and her box of cards (that is how a person programmed in those days) was dumped across the road, and she needed to redo her semester’s project.  Perhaps that’s the equivalent of the energy expended running away from an attack.  I’d say generally less crime and fewer perpetrators was actually good for my mental and physical health. So I’d be displeased if someone said “higher crime is better for you as it keeps you on your toes” or “it’s better for the human species if not you”, or “the ecosystem” or whatever.

It’s also interesting to me how climate change is used for different species.   For some species (carnivores), climate change is happening so we need more protections of current habitat and more habitat and more reintroductions.  For herbivores, climate change is happening, populations in some areas are dropping and we don’t know why… so let’s stress them more by introducing more predators!  It seems like a bias against hervivores, what we might call carnivorism or carnivolatry.

Again, I’m not against wolves.  I just think that this Colorado thing is needlessly disruptive to all kinds of creatures and people.  Many bad things happen when individuals become unimportant in pursuit of ideas (think 20th century history) and I don’t think we necessarily are having the conversations around this that we should including all points of view.

 

 

PERC’s Payments for Elk Presence on Private Land

by

‘Since I mentioned this in yesterday’s post, I thought I would post here. Here’s a direct way to pay people for ecosystem services.. which seems efficient. Plus there’s AI.. and local firms and people.

Paradise Valley, MT — The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) today announced an innovative payment-for-presence program to compensate a rancher for providing elk habitat in Montana’s Paradise Valley.

Using advanced camera traps powered by artificial intelligence (AI) together with landowners’ innate knowledge of the land, this innovative program is the first of its kind in the region. Rather than paying ranchers for predator losses as traditional livestock compensation programs do, PERC’s payments are based on the presence of elk to specifically mitigate elk-livestock conflict.

Paradise Valley serves as an important wintering ground for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s migrating elk herds. As rapid development threatens wildlife habitat in the valley, ranchers and their large, open land holdings play a valuable role in maintaining ecosystem connectivity. Providing habitat, however, comes at a cost.

As the national leader in market solutions for conservation, Montana-based PERC works to develop incentive-based solutions that conserve wildlife habitat by helping mitigate those costs to landowners.

“Elk are often viewed as uninvited guests on a rancher’s property,” says PERC CEO Brian Yablonski. “Ranchers are essentially feeding the elk at great personal expense. Ultimately, we need these private open lands to remain intact if we want to conserve this unique migratory ecosystem, and paying ranchers ‘elk rent’  for providing this public good is a critical step toward accomplishing that.”

A minimum of 20 elk captured on camera across the ranch in a single day constitutes an “elk day” and triggers a financial payout to the rancher. A bonus payment is offered when 200 or more elk are captured in a single day, with a $12,000 cap on total annual payments.

Druska Kinkie, who along with her husband and son run Emigrant Peak Ranch, regularly sees 400-500 elk on her property during peak migration season. The heavy wildlife presence imposes costs through lost forage, fence damage, and the threat of disease transfer, namely brucellosis, a reproductive disease that is spread from elk and bison to cattle.

“This program has offered us a ray of hope,” said Druska Kinkie of Emigrant Peak Ranch. “We want to do right by the elk, but not at the expense of our livelihoods. Compensating their presence offsets the costs they impose, making the elk less of a liability for us.”

Jeff Reed of Grizzly Systems (left), Druska Kinikie of Emigrant Peak Ranch (center), and PERC’s Brian Yablonski (right)
Harnessing smart cameras to calculate elk rent

The new program brings together Emigrant Peak Ranch and Grizzly Systems, a local technology firm that uses advanced AI camera traps with an integrated software platform. The advanced technology helps differentiate between random movement such as grass blowing in the wind and actual wildlife detection.

Harnessing smart cameras to calculate elk rent

The new program brings together Emigrant Peak Ranch and Grizzly Systems, a local technology firm that uses advanced AI camera traps with an integrated software platform. The advanced technology helps differentiate between random movement such as grass blowing in the wind and actual wildlife detection.

To try capturing the number of elk on the ranch at any given time, the program relies on game cameras installed in key locations throughout the property. Over time, the AI technology will learn how to better identify elk, reducing the amount of data to analyze. The rancher can also take photos with her smartphone to augment the game cameras.

The pilot program is designed to test the payment-for-presence system as well as the efficiency of artificial intelligence game cameras with continuous refinement.

“We’re excited to test the potential of our technology in such an important region for wildlife,” said Jeff Reed of Grizzly Systems. “We appreciate PERC’s spirit of creativity and flexibility to explore what makes the most sense for ranchers and wildlife. As our technology evolves, so too can the model of this program, delivering more tailored results.”

PERC’s Paradise Valley payment-for-presence program is the fourth project out of PERC’s Conservation Innovation Lab, including Montana’s first elk occupancy agreement, the Paradise Valley brucellosis compensation fund, and the grizzly grazing conflict reduction project in the Gravelly Range. When conservationists help ranchers offset the costs wildlife impose, they’re ultimately helping sustain the wildlife themselves.

Learn more about this project.