When an expert on grizzly bears broke the news last week that there are now officially 728 of the bruins in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem — up from 714 last year — not even he believed what he was saying told the full story.

Population estimates are derived using a conservative method known as Chao 2. How conservative is the count? Many stakeholders have suggested there may be as many as 1,100 to 1,200 grizzlies in the ecosystem, but state and federal officials aren’t willing to make a guess.

What they will say is that conflicts are rising at an alarming rate due to population densities maxing out inside core habitat in and around Yellowstone National Park known as the demographic monitoring area (DMA).

Grizzlies are territorial by nature, which forces them to spread out in search of suitable habitat as populations increase, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader Frank T. van Manen said at a Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee meeting in Cody last week.

More grizzlies are moving outside the DMA in search of their own piece of ground every year. Unfortunately, their expansion often means they end up in harm’s way, van Manen said.

So far in 2019, nine grizzlies have been euthanized inside the DMA to manage conflicts with another 11 put down outside the DMA. The figure is well below last year’s pace, when a record 32 grizzly bears were lethally removed in Wyoming.

While this may have been a better year for the federally protected species, conflicts are still a top concern, as grizzlies account for the vast majority of all predator conflicts. It was the main topic of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee’s Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee stop in Cody last week. The meeting was set up differently this year, hoping to develop new ideas on how to decrease conflicts with the help of stakeholder input including the general public.

Members of the public were invited to attend the meeting alongside subcommittee members, which included representatives from state and federal agencies with expertise on grizzly management.

Budd Betts is an outfitter northwest of Dubois. He spoke to members of the subcommittee on day one of a two day meeting about his concerns for human safety. “We’ve been able to resolve [conflicts] where there haven’t been any injuries or bear or human mortalities,” Betts said.

Last year, outfitter Mark Uptain and a client were preparing to pack out an elk they had killed when they were attacked by a grizzly. Uptain died, his client was wounded and a sow and her cub were euthanized after the attack. Now, for safety, Betts’ outfitters go into the field one hunter per guide.

“We’ve never had to shoot a bear, thank God, but there have been many warning shots,” he said. “I myself have had to use bear spray twice.”

A different way of counting?

Betts called for a new count method as soon as possible.

“If there are better, more accurate methods to count [grizzlies], we should use those methods,” he said. “When you talk about bears going outside the DMA — as far east as Byron — it pretty much speaks to the fact that we’re full inside the DMA. It seems we’re at maximum carrying capacity. And that drives their different behavior.”

When grizzlies were delisted in 2017, Chao 2 estimates were used in arguing for the change and setting future mortality limits. At the time, even talking about changing count methods would have been difficult, slowing the species’ move off the endangered species list. Now that grizzlies are protected again, it may be easier to advocate for an official change in count methods, van Manen said. However, regardless of the political environment and lawsuits, he’s never stopped his efforts to find the perfect combination of variables to more accurately estimate bear populations.

“Our science goes on no matter the legal status of the species,” van Manen said. “It’s up to the managers and others to set policy and make decisions based on [population] estimates.”

Grizzlies outside the DMA are not part of current population estimates. Moving toward a system where more accurate estimates are used is important for many decisions being made, he said. “But they’re difficult critters to study.”

A new proposal for counting will be rolled out next spring, van Manen said, and adopting the new method will take more time.

Roundtable discussions

At last week’s meeting, Park County resident Leslie Patten found herself at one of several tables set up for groups to discuss five topics thought to be important in decreasing conflicts. Those at her table included people with significant influence: Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Cam Sholly, Shoshone National Forest public information officer Kristie Salzmann, Wyoming Game and Fish Department Statewide Wildlife and Habitat Management Supervisor Tim Woolley and Large Carnivore Program Manager Dan Thompson. Four other groups formed around the room with the same level of experience at each.

Patten had been disappointed at previous Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee meetings with the limited amount of opportunities for public comment. She was very pleased with last week’s roundtable discussions, knowing her voice would be heard by those who make decisions about the species.

“I thought this was a good process with lots of great ideas,” Patten said. “We’ll see what gets into their recommendations and what gets implemented.”

Patten was in the minority, as officials far outnumbered concerned citizens at the lightly advertised meeting. About 80 attended Friday morning’s meeting at the Holiday Inn, but less than a dozen of those in attendance were unaffiliated Park County residents, ranchers or bear activists.

Predator education and funding for projects to help slow conflicts were major subjects, regardless of which topic was being debated. While ranchers are searching for ways to afford additional electric fencing or to pay riders to help protect grazing herds, Yellowstone Park officials say it will be at least another decade before they can afford to have bear-proof food safes at every campground within park borders.