by
Grace A. Wang
School of Forest Resources
The Pennsylvania State University
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?)
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.
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.
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.
Each stakeholder group will have a different "take" on grizzly bear reintroduction. Some of the more obvious points:
- 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.
- 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)
- Residents--also concerned, but more locally, with the economic effects of reintroduction.
- 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).
- Wildlife biologists--concerned with following federal law, yet constrained by local officials and citizens’ interests.
- Tourism/recreation groups (such as outfitters)--look at grizzly bear reintroduction as a possible "draw" into the area.
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
Extractive industries may have to perform their activities around (time and space) grizzly bear habitat and management guidelines.
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.
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. 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.
The American Grizzly Bear
http://home.att.net/~jrmusgrove/index.htmGrizzly 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.