Stephanne: Hey, hey, hey, and welcome to the Wildlife For You podcast and the Old Man Johnson series. I am your host, Stephanie Payne, and I am joined here by my co-host, my best friend, and wildlife biologist Extraordinaire, Daryl Radijak. Well D, okay, so it has been a minute since we did our last podcast. So how do you reckon we catch people up? Daryl: Well, I think that's pretty simple stuff. I think what we should do is probably tell everyone kinda what's been going on with our two friends old man Johnson and hashtag Hazel. Stephanne: You mean how Hazel decided to take off and explore the world? Like would you believe in the nerve of her like heading off to Belgium or somewhere far away and leaving us peasants just kinda stranded here? Daryl: that was Hazel? I th man, I thought that was you. Stephanne: No comments. Daryl: Well, don't forget old man Johnson. He's he's been in quite a funk lately, and I swear he seems to be growing more crotchety by the minute. but thankfully, you have a way of bringing him back down to earth. So he's still an or ornary rascal though. Stephanne: So that was that was OMJ, was it? Daryl: No comment. Stephanne: Well okay. Well, I was just glad to see the the two of them back at it this past week. But secretly, I don't I don't just think that they enjoy each other's company. I I think I know that they enjoy each other's company. Daryl: Yeah, yeah, me too. And thinking of them two together, I am pretty sure you caught the the little spat that they had on their porch. Stephanne: You mean the bear talk, like were in OMJ's case, the bar talk. Daryl: Yeah, and I'm not even sure what brought that whole thing up, but given that there's been quite a bit of bar talk in the news lately, I figured it'd make a really good podcast this week. Stephanne: And you're talking about grizzly bars, I imagine. Daryl: That I am. And tell you what, why don't I play that snippet from their conversation? And then we're gonna dive into explaining to our audience why this is such a pertinent topic right now. Stephanne: I believe that is a mighty fine idea there, sir. So why don't you go ahead and cue it up? Daryl: Alright, here we go. This is from Old Man Johnson and hashtag Hazel. Well there you have it, Steph. That's our topic for today. So we're gonna be talking about grizzly bars. so you wanna explain why this is such a pertinent topic nowadays? Stephanne: Well, considering that there's been in the news quite a bit of a bar talk lately, I think I think we oughta talk about what's been going on in everybody's mind. And that would be the big federal announcement regarding the federal listing. Daryl: And well, truthfully, Steph, I'm just kinda happy the big news isn't isn't about another attack, because there's been a couple of those. But the discussion we're about to embark on is gonna it's gonna be involving the status of grizzly bears. And it oughta be good, because I tell ya, whenever I hear people t talk about this this topic, this status of grizzly bears. Stephanne: All right. Daryl: I usually cringe from all the misinformation that gets thrown about. So where do you want to start with this discussion? Stephanne: I mean, you cringing at misinformation, like in another news, water is wet, right? But before we dive in, let me first say that Daryl and I we had an in-depth discussion last week on trying to discern between how to best confront those kind of emotional based and science-based reactions to wildlife management issues. So albeit last week we were chatting about chronic wasting disease, but this topic of grizzly bear management. Daryl: Yes. Stephanne: Is the prime example of an emotionally charged topic. And I wow, like this, it really is kind of the pinnacle for that. And we know that people representing both sides of this discussion are extremely passionate about their beliefs. But we have to approach these topics with logic and critical thinking whenever it's time to make a decision on these matters. So now that I've done my PSA and put my disclaimer out there, now we may proceed. Daryl: Well, before we proceed, I'm gonna add to that because this is truly an emotional topic. And one of the things that kinda gets to me is whenever you do approach these highly charged emotional topics, people close off the other side. They they have their beliefs deep down, and that's great. Whatever you truly believe in. But there should never be a time where you stop listening to the other side. Because in order to make an informed conclusion, opinion, whatever you want to make, you gotta hear all sides of the story. And so by intentionally blocking out all the information, it's really doing a disservice to whatever topic you're talking about. So I have a feeling we're gonna go back and forth on this issue because there's there's pros and cons and depending on what side, one person might think it's a pro, the other person might think it's a con. So just keep an open mind as we discuss this topic. So we're gonna dive into yep. Stephanne: You know what? Yeah, I was gonna say, let's give a primer. So let's give you you this is this is all you. Give everybody a history of grizzlies in the lower forty eight. Daryl: I'll me. Way back when when the earth was first forming No, I won't go back that far. We usually w usually what we do whenever we're talking about wildlife, a a good point to consider is that pre European situation before b before the the Stephanne: When Firsthand knowledge? Daryl: the early Europeans came here and completely changed the the whole makeup of North America. You're looking at grizzly bears or brown bears is the actual scientific term of them, Ursus Arctos. and they're they're primarily a Western species. They're they're found mostly throughout all the Western states. They even kind of ventured all the way into the Great Plains. In fact, Lewis and Clark expedition, a lot of the early encounters of Grizzlies were on those Great Plains. And so they ventured fairly close to that Mississippi River. Now over time as the early Europeans became more and more prevalent, we started pushing them out of the West. Just so you know, Canada, Alaska, still western ish portion of the continent, but they got they still have it. a lot of grizzly bears up there. Not as much as they used to, but as the early Europeans began growing in population, we don't like competition. Competition. So we we waged war on on grizzlies and kind of reduced their range to what most people nowadays know in the lower 48 as this separate population That consists primarily of Yellowstone National Park and surrounding immediate surrounding areas, the Greater Yellowstone area, all the way up into Glacier. And that's where they hung on. And so they weren't doing well. 1970s, early 1970s, they estimated that there was probably less than 800 bears left in the lower 48, grizzly bears left in the lower 48. You want to know how bad it got in Yellowstone. They were thinking there's less than 150. I think the lowest count they they estimated was about 136 in in Yellowstone. And that's how low it got. And so at that point in time, we decided, you know what? This is an iconic species. All species deserve to be on the landscape where where they can survive. And so they decided to do something that was was pretty special because in nineteen seventy two Congress created this thing called the Endangered Species Act. And what that did is it looked at species that were extremely imperiled. And you can classify them. There's there's a number of different categories, but the two primary categories are there are species that are endangered, which means they are truly on the brink of going extinct. And then the slightly lesser one are species that are classified as threatened, which means they're on the brink of becoming endangered. So it's like one step below. Now understand they put bears on this endangered species list in 1975 because those numbers got so low. We are only talking about the population in the lower 48. They were not. Endangered or threatened in Alaska or Canada or the rest of the world, Russia. Like there are brown bears all over Asia and Europe. And so we're only talking about this population located in the lower 48 states. And so 1975 they decided to list grizzlies as threatened, which puts all these protections on these animals in hopes of growing their population back. So let me pause there, get a breather. Anything else I need to explain or anything you want to add in there? Stephanne: no, I don't think so. I will only say just listening to that that slight, you know, monologue there, but it was beautiful because it makes me really proud to be your best friend. I just hope you know that. Like the fact that you just know all of that stuff is just amazing. So, but no, I think the only thing that I would maybe ask a question about is what is the the protective difference on the EPA? Daryl: Whatever. Stephanne: when it comes to threatened versus endangered. Daryl: You you said EPA, I'm imagining you were meaning ESA. Stephanne: Sorry, the Yes, thank you. So it's a moment. You yeah. I totally got lost, like I said, in your monologue. I'm I'm sorry. Daryl: Environmental Well, believe it or not, threatened protections and endangered protections are pretty darn similar. Stephanne: Okay. Daryl: So yeah, yeah, i if if you're listed as either threatened or endangered, the cool well, all right, let me go back. Most animals, particularly mammals, are managed by the state wildlife agency because they live in a particular state. Now there are exceptions when it comes to birds because birds migrate long ways, so they They fly over, they live in multiple states all at once throughout their lifetime. Those migratory birds are managed by the federal government, but most mammals are managed by state wildlife agencies. So bears being a mammal would be managed by the state wildlife agency. So you know as well as I, states manage animals differently. Some states are very protective of species like. predators or anything, other states kinda have a a different opinion and and don't offer as many protections. So the thing with grizzlies is as soon as they were listed and declared a threatened species, all the individual states lost management control. They were no longer the authority over those animals. They become the authority of the federal government. So they're managed primarily by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like they operate completely on their own without any oversight or anything. They work hand in hand with some of the states, but the final decision on what happens with an animal that's listed under the Endangered Species Act ultimately falls down to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. So where was I going? What was your original question? I'm getting old, man. Stephanne: No, so you you answered it 'cause it was asking about the difference between being threatened versus being considered, you know, listed as endangered. So Daryl: Okay. Yeah, so so they have all these protections. So in other words, once the Fish and Wildlife Service has an an animal listed, and there's I I won't go into the whole process. It it takes quite a bit of background information. Like you could propose a any group can propose an animal to be listed if they have the data and information showing that this animal is is definitely in need and there's five different criteria like And I'm just gonna mention a couple of them, but they're the habitat in which those animals live is extremely imperiled. like disease or anything is impacting those. So any species could be proposed, and then there's a long process in which the Fish and Wildlife Service and statewide like all the all the interested groups get together and do fact finding to say, is this animal really endangered or really th really threatened? And then they will make a decision on whether or not it gets listed. Once an animal, if all the data comes back and says, Yeah, this this animal really needs some help, and we'll use the grizzlies as an example, they were down to less than 800 animals in the whole lower 48, which is primarily Montana, Idaho, Wyoming. And so they warranted the listing. Whenever a species get gets listed, One of the things that is supposed to take place, sometimes it takes a while, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has to come up with a recovery plan where they say, All right, here's the current status of this species. This is what's going on. This is how many animals we think. These are the threats that the animals are facing. These are some of the things we can do to improve the status or well-being of this species. And typically They try to set recovery goals, which more or less means the population is currently at X. If we can get the population to X plus whatever, whatever the information they decide or they they use to decide what meets a full recovery, then once they get to that point, then the animal Can come off the list. Like if it's endangered, then it could slide down to threatened. If it's threatened, then it could come off the list. And so the grizzly bear had a recovery plan of recovering so many animals in this particular area. And that was 1975. So Stephanne: Okay. So they have been listed since nineteen seventy five then. Is that what you're saying there, sir? Daryl: That's what I'm saying. Now, did they stay on that list all over the last 51 years? It was a little bit of a yo-yo. And what I mean by that is when they were first listed in '75, very well deserving. I I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you might know this. What was the original recovery goal for number of bears in the Greater Yellowstone Age? I'm thinking it was it was Stephanne: I gosh, I did a report on this way back in the college days, but I don't think my brain can go that far back. Yeah, no, I mean it was it was just essentially just a a you know, a genetically viable population that they felt could disperse and then and and persist. But Daryl: Way back when I was in sixth grade. Yeah, and I think they tried sending some numbers, like for example, in the the Yellowstone, greater Yellowstone area. So just Yellowstone National Park and surrounding areas. I I don't know if it was seven hundred animals or a thousand animals. It it was it's somewhat now remember it was down to about a hundred and thirty, hundred and fifty bears. So that is like increasing the population five times over. So that was that was pretty that would be pretty good recovery there. So Stephanne: I thought it was eight. Yeah. I'm I'm wanting to lean like eight, eight, fifty. Mm. Yeah. That's a lot. Eight. Daryl: They instituted all these protections. Now when the Fish and Wildlife Service has control, there's no hunting season. You you can't you can't kill an animal or you can't even like impact its habitat, negatively impact its habitat. And so there's really, really strong restrictions. I I should have meant mentioned that is that they come at you with a hammer that makes sure that you're not because we're we're talking about the the viability or the existence of an an to cause an animal to go extinct, that's plain that's plain God there and it's Stephanne: Well and let's be clear, let's just on the other side of that hypothetical conversation about God, if they did go extinct locally. So because like you just mentioned, we do have other sub species of brown bear across the the world. Let's just play that out for a brief and shining moment. If they had gone extinct locally and we then tried to bring in a different subspecies of bear, we would have paid hell for that as well. So Daryl: We that's a whole nother podcast. We probably did two of those podcasts, alright. Stephanne: That is a whole nother podcast. But I'm just saying that's that's what happens when when we make animals go extinct. We can't even replace them with the next best. So Daryl: Yeah, even though it's super super close. So anyway, g going back to the whole listing of of Grizzlies, so nineteen seventy-five, very well deserved placing on the endanger. Now again, lower forty eight, Canada, Alaska, they're doing great. But we're trying to maintain a population in that lower forty-eight, particularly that greater Yellowstone Glacier, Better Root, the rugged northern Stephanne: Yeah. Daryl: northern Rockies area. Now it they responded well. So from 1975 all the way up to the early 2000s, their population was growing. And they were really getting close to, if not exceeding, these recovery goals. Because they they put a number of animals or grizzlies they want on the landscape and then they're really close to it. Now people will argue because How do you how do you come up with a number how how many animals are in the population? Stephanne: You just have to make an estimate, right? Daryl: Yes. Nobody knows exactly. You you can yeah. And so people would argue, that's an overestimate. that's an underestimate. so they'll go back and forth, back and forth. But the good thing is they were doing much better. So two thousand seven US Fish and Wildlife Service said, We met the recovery goals. We're gonna recommend that they get taken off the list. Can I bring up a pet peeve of mine? Stephanne: I would never dream of stopping you. Daryl: Well, because when an animal is taken off the list, meaning they are no longer threatened or endangered, that is a reason to celebrate and cheer. And so many people like fight for animals to be it it's like they want them to be critically endangered. And it's like I don't get it. I I know that, but Stephanne: I don't think that they want them to be critically endangered. They just want the protections to persist. Daryl: Right. I I I get that, but it's like, man, if if an animal is getting close to whether or not it should be on the list, it still should be something that's comforting, at least. So yes. So 2007, US Fish and Wildlife Service said, you know what? We're gonna take them off the list. And they recommended that they were delisted. And they were for a short period of time. Stephanne: Agreed. Agreed. They're success stories, small victories. Daryl: Because there's obviously different lawsuits and things that happen. And one of the things they realized, and this is again early two thousands, have you heard of white white bark pine? Stephanne: I know that that is a food source. Daryl: Yes, they produce a nut, j just like many of the pine trees, and is a huge, huge food source for grizzlies in that northern Rocky Mountain area. And we have this pine beetle that comes in and it devastates some of these pine forests. So one of the biggest food sources for grizzlies was getting wiped out pretty much the same time that the bears were getting delisted. And so people were saying, What this isn't good. They're gonna they're gonna struggle again. Stephanne: Gonna starve. Mm-hmm. Daryl: So two years later, 2009, they're put back on the list. Because that that's something you got you gotta make sure if if you take them off that they're they're gonna do okay after you take them off. So 2009, they went back on the list and things were chugging along. Grizzly populations continue to grow. And you know as well as I like you you're having there there's two big populations. There's a glacier population and then that greater yellowstone population. Stephanne: Because their food source was imperiled. Daryl: And if you can link them up where they actually can move back and forth as far as from genetic viability and it it's a good thing to connect those two distinct populations. And so they're growing, they're really close to getting to that point. So in 2017, guess what? They were they were delisted again and One of the things that happens when an animal is delisted to go from threatened to be completely taken off the list, the state wildlife agencies assume control of their management again. And I remember this distinctly. I was living in New Mexico and obviously big bear official. I remember when all this happened, and literally the next day, it might not have been the next day, but within weeks. Two of the states, and I think it was Idaho and Wyoming, announced plans to start hunting the grizzlies again. Now, albeit I am a state wildlife guy, born and bred and raised in Korea for a long time. I understand hunting. And the way they had it set up, it was not gonna be a detriment to the population because they're only gonna allow one or two tags or v just a tiny, tiny amount. But man, talking about bad messaging, bad timing, bad y you don't do that. And so soon as that was announced, it was like it set off these emotionally charged people. It said, No, you cannot do this. And so sure enough, 2018, they're relisted. And that's that's where we've been ever since. Until Stephanne: Yeah. Daryl: About a week and a half ago. Okay. Stephanne: So, but I think you kind of segued to a good point, right? Like as soon as things happen related to an extraordinarily iconic species that honestly has a lot of symbolism to that old, you know, the the wild of the west part of the the continent here, it's newsworthy. It's talked about. It is instantaneously a topic that's gonna be in front of everybody because that's just what bears do. Daryl: I I you know what? I've been talking way too much. I'm gonna ask you a few things because you say g grizzlies can like steal the national media spotlight in the blink of an eye. One of the ways they do that is grizzly buyers are big I don't wanna say scary, they're not scary. They're they're big animals that can kill you dead. So Stephanne: Yes. Daryl: So there there's a couple instances and you know these a whole lot better, but tell the audience like some of the more famous baritex to put it lightly? Yes. Infamous. Stephanne: Famous, infamous ones? I mean, Lynn lately is definitely lately is a subjective term because I mean we had a fatality just earlier this year in the Glacier National Park area. And and like you kind of mentioned, right, you've got these couple areas that are are huge recreational draws, Glacier and Yellowstone. And then so that's to bringing in people and that's also where these populations of brown bears have really not only persisted, but that's the area then obviously since where they persisted where they're gonna grow. to a pretty good a pretty good population. So I mean th I think one of probably the the most famous ones happened gosh, I guess it's been about what, two decades now when when the Mateoshi and Wallace Yellowstone attacks actually occurred. Daryl: Well, real quick, Night of the Grizzlies, that was way before, wasn't that in the sixties? Stephanne: Correct. That was in the seven no, it was in the seventies, I believe. and that one just to get everybody kind of clued in, it was very, very odd. But in Glacier, they actually had back to back fatalities with with Grizzlies, literally like happening in the same same night, two different areas, two different completely sets of people, two different, obviously two different bears, but there was two bear fatalities that that evening. So yeah, that which is very rare. It's rare for one to happen. Daryl: Okay. Stephanne: But it's extremely rare for for two to happen in the same the same day. But so like the Matayoshi one. And that one was that one was kind of public. It was the Mateyoshi wallace. So that one was kind of nifty because you have a mama bear with cubs who who who it that's when he's in Yellowstone. and you know, it started off with like a a a picture. So you've got a a a couple that are the Mateyoshi couple is out in there Daryl: Wh where was this? Stephanne: they're taking pictures of the local flora and fauna, and they see a mama with cubs out in a field, and they are taking pictures and potentially I don't wanna I don't like to victim blame, but they're potentially too close when they notice that this is happening. And the the mama bear charges and does end up killing Mr. Mateyoshi. And then a lot of people, because again, these can go very public in just an instantaneous heartbeat, a lot of people. go to the defense of the bear. You see this a lot of times where, you know, a lot of times you'll you'll get the arguments that the bear's just being a bear, but in this case you've got a mom with cubs. So everybody is saying this is just a mama bear doing what a mama bear does. Everybody knows you don't mess with the mama bear because, you know, things are gonna happen. God Daryl: I I was gonna say wasn't like it it wasn't a prolonged attack. The sh d she was just delivering Stephanne: No. Yeah, she chased him down. yeah, and and the wife got away and yeah, she she attacked and killed him. it wasn't it wasn't a prolonged thing. It was just a a what by all intents and purposes appeared to be a normal defensive reaction for a mama grizzly. little extreme, obviously. Like I don't wanna to downplay that. But the ironic thing is so the whole world comes to to bat for the mama bear and says that she was just doing what mama bears do. Daryl: It was a bite. Stephanne: And then ironically, not too long thereafter, there's another fatality that happens in Yellowstone. And there's evidence of multiple bears in the area when they find the the deceased individual who had actually I and I don't want to get too graphic here, but had actually been fed upon. And so when they're bringing in the team to do all of the forensics investigation, you know, they're obviously going around and they're collecting all of the bear scat in the local area because they need to run some genetics because it's a pretty bare populous area. And the one thing we don't want to do, none of us want to do, is accuse the wrong bear, you know, because it's it's really difficult on bears. Even if you grab one and you put it in captivity for a while to pull DNA on it to wait for it to come back, that is an extraordinarily stressful thing on the bear. Long story short, the culprit bear that at bare minimum fed on the guy was the same mama bear and her one one of their two cubs. Daryl: So they never put her down after that first incident? Stephanne: They didn't put her down after the first incident because the public came out in outcry and said she's just being a mama bear, but then she's implicated. Now, here's where it all goes kind of a little bit sideways. Th there are guesstimations that she also was the one who then had a predatory attack and killed this this other individual. But it's not like any of us were sitting there and taking notes. So we really just are making an assumption. There is a chance that she came upon the deceased person and, you know, fed upon them post mortem. But but yeah, so and that's just one of the cases, right? Like I could probably spit out five in the last you know, five to ten years. It's not frequent, but when they happen, they're everywhere. Everybody knows about it. Daryl: So th I'm just thinking here, th it's so interesting because you're you're telling about these horrific events that sometimes takes place between bears and humans and oftentimes human loses in that situation. Yet you have this public that is so in love with bears that they will defend the bears at all costs. And yeah, so that I think that's a great example of demonstrating the Stephanne: Yes. Daryl: the emotional investment that people have in in Grizzlies because no matter what, they're they're they're gonna be defending them. Stephanne: I mean you and I bears are our con the like you say it all the time, they're charismatic and they're iconic. I mean, how many bears end up with their own paparazzi and Facebook pages and you know, if we extended that out to black bears, you know, have they're they're named individuals, you know what I mean? They are literally named individuals with a fan club. Daryl: Well, it and I wa it just dawned on me. Like the Queen of the Tetons, Bear three ninety nine. She started her career, she attacked someone, and then that was and she's known as being like the most gracious, wonderful spokesperson bear out there. So anyway, it makes it it makes it challenging as a wildlife manager, which I consider myself being one of those. How to manage these animals. And again, whenever I talk about bears or any other wildlife species that I deal with, I have this maybe it's a defense mechanism, but I have a way of thinking them thinking about them as a population instead of the individual. Because if you get stuck thinking of the individual, it's gonna be extremely, extremely difficult. So my number one priority is thinking of them as as a whole, as a population. And so it leads to difficult situations because outside of the human fatality, there is a ton of other human bear conflict situations. So you have you have bears, grizzlies and blacks both. You you have them getting into The they get into human country. Now lots of people talk about bear country and you got you gotta know better when you're in bear country, but a lot of times bears come into human country. So I would say any any place that's developed where you have lots of houses, obviously you're gonna have lots of people, lots of trash, and bears come in and they cause conflict. Whether or not it's damage to vehicles, they break into vehicles, they break into barns, sometimes they break into houses. And there's there's lots of situations where as a wildlife management agency they have to deal with those situations. And here's the thing: it's not always they they they knocked over my my garbage can. Occasionally there's some significant losses to people and their livelihood. The the folks that live in bear country that whether or not they're They're farmers, ranchers, doing whatever. A lot of people live and make their living out in the country. And if bears come in and mess with that, you have someone that raises bees and has beehives to raise money for honey, and a bear comes in and destroys that, that is a serious hardship for those individuals. Same thing with ranchers, same thing with even folks that might not be making money, but maybe having chickens or other livestock for food for their own family. It's like these bears could have serious impacts on humans. And so it it definitely sets up a situation where managing these animals, you have to make some hard decisions. Anything you want to add? Stephanne: so yeah. So I mean I'm gonna and I'm gonna bring up again that this is bears have a way of polarizing people very, very effectively. Because when stuff like that happens, everybody who's not those farmers, not those rural people living in in whether it's to augment their own you know, families, nutritional needs or or their their money, the people who are not in those situations Turn into raging instant critics. You know, well they need to move. Well, there's other things they could do. Well, they need to do this and they need to do that and they need to pony up this money to get this brand spanking new whatever. You know what I mean? It it definitely polarizes people. But there's so not only the cost to the individual, but that costs agencies. So what does that look like? Daryl: it it's tremendous costs. but before I mention any of those costs, that that's the whole polarization everything. And I'm probably gonna just repeat everything you just said. But most of the people come at it knowing only one side of the story. If you're that wildlife photographer or just someone that vacations in Yellowstone or Glacier, you wanna see those bears, get your pictures, have a cool vacation, and then you go back home, you don't deal with them. you have a very positive outlook of bears, but then so you'll you only have one side of the story. The other side are the people that live with the bears and they see these bears coming in causing damage. Just they they have to deal with living with those bears. So they have that side of the story. They don't get as excited seeing a bear in a country because they see it all the time. So that's why I think we're we're well suited to talk about this because we've We do both. I love bears. I go on vacation to Yellowstone. I also do management. And so understanding two sides of the story, this is why it's so important not to block out that other side. You gotta take in all the information you can to really think hard and make the best decisions possible. But you mentioned about the cost of this management. It is do you have any idea how much l okay. Per year, like grizzly bears are managed currently by the Fish and Wildlife Service because they're on the endangered species list. How much do you think that one agency spends on managing grizzlies per year? Stephanne: Okay, do you want me to play dumb or you want me to play like I actually maybe looked into this a little bit? Daryl: You probably know it. So d tell tell me roughly how much they spend. Stephanne: About three and a half million dollars a year, right? Daryl: Yes. And it wow, it's that's a lot of money. Three and a half million dollars a year from one agency on one species. Stephanne: Yeah. Daryl: That is nothing because it's remember, it's not just the Fish and Wildlife Service dealing with this. You have all those individual state wildlife agencies dealing with it. So for example, bears were listed, grizzly bears were listed on endangered species as an endangered species in 1975. Since that listing, Wyoming, the state of Wyoming, State Wildlife Agency in Wyoming has spent over 70 million dollars managing. Stephanne: Yeah. Daryl: Grizzlies. Stephanne: Get my calculator out. Go ahead. Daryl: Montana, I think I was looking it up, is like forty five million just since like nineteen ninety. And so there is a ton like millions of dollars, like millions and millions, may maybe close to ten million dollars spent each year just for managing a handful of bears. And when I say a handful of bears, it's a thousand bears. It's it's a significant number, but it's not like the fifty million white-tailed deer we have out there. So it's it's a small number of animals that is really costing a ton of money to to manage these animals. Stephanne: Truth, truth. Yeah, so we're looking at six point five million dollars just for the three that we cited per year. So if we take that and we multiply that by the fifty one years that we're talking about, that is a chunk change. We're talking like yeah, we're talking like three hundred million dollars or something. So Daryl: It's a chunk of change. And now I I'll play the devil's advocate because I hear this thrown out all the all the time. Well, grizzlies bring in all this money because people go to Yellowstone to to look at Grizzlies or go to Glacier. That is true. And I looked up to see roughly how much money is brought in to the economy. For people going to Yellowstone for that reason to look at wildlife. And the one survey I looked at, I think it was USGS, US Geological Survey, they they did that. They analyzed that, and it came out to be about $35 million per year. Where Yellowstone's bringing people in for wildlife. Now keep in mind that's all wildlife. Here's the big kicker. That is just bringing the money into the economy. That's not bringing money in for grizzlies. That's bringing money into the restaurants, to the shopping stores, to the gas stations. That's a boost in the local economy. And so that is not paying for grizzly bear management. And we did a podcast where most who funds most of the wildlife management and Stephanne: That's one. Correct. Daryl: Some people will argue it, but it's still hunters and fishermen are still the lion's share of who's paying for all this stuff. I will say in that analysis I looked at, with thirty five million coming in each year, Grizzlies accounted for about seven million of that. You know which species would have brought in the most? Stephanne: We did. Ooh, well, since I can't say cougars because I know that's not true, I'll go with the wolf packs. Daryl: Yeah, they would they would account for most of the people wanting to go to Yellowstone to see something. So anyway, it's the the bottom line is it's expensive to manage these animals. And people are passionate about how we manage. you could argue different ways in which we manage the different values of all this, but it's definitely something that usually raises quite the conversation around the coffee table whenever you bring up grizzly management. So so did you hear Stephanne: Do you think that the the paparazzi for like like you mentioned earlier, three ninety nine? Do you think that when we have bears like that or the there was a couple of other ones I think in the Tetons. no, no, it was Tahoe area, you know, where some of the bears were were also equally named. But do you think that those types of air quotes and I air quotes relationships with bears where they have become kind of the, you know, either a the iconic bear like in three ninety nine or those for lack of a better term, community pet bears. I hate to say that 'cause I don't want people to think that I can donate the that beha but that exacerbates that cost, right? Because Daryl: Yes. my gosh. Yeah, d do you do you remember when you and I took the students to Greater Yellowstone area? I think it was like twenty, twenty one or so. Stephanne: Yes. Uhhuh. Yeah, I'm getting old, but I haven't forgotten that one yet. Daryl: you are getting old. anyway, we we were talking we were talking with someone who worked closely with bears up there in that the Teton area and very specifically about Bear 399. Stephanne: Thank you. Daryl: And they they ran some numbers and their best estimate was just one bear, one bear alone was costing the agency close to a million dollars a year. Because just think of all the calls they get in, all the the traffic jams that they've gotta settle and all the personnel they bring in. Now we could argue back and forth well not you and I but Folks would argue with us about three ninety nine and how great of a bear she was. But if we were to anthropomorphize all bears like that, we couldn't afford it. It's like I said, you you gotta think, as a wildlife manager, you gotta think of the populations because thinking of the individual animals, although I understand the intrinsic value of those individual animals, we just can't manage at that level. Stephanne: Yeah. No. Daryl: Can't afford to. No. So no, I was gonna say, so did you hear the announcement recently, like about a week or so ago, that I sent to you Stephanne: Can't. So what were you gonna say? I'm sorry. The one where they're yes, yes. so just for clarity, if you hadn't sent it to me, I don't know that I would have seen it yet because I am a little slow on the news sometimes. But yes, so there was an announcement pretty recently that they're looking at putting the the management back into the estate's hands for brown bears. So what is that so talk to us, what does that mean? Because I know what I originally read that, I was not a happy girl. Daryl: Yeah I know and I had to talk you down off the ledge. Stephanne: Yeah, yeah, you had to explain to me really what that meant. And that's this is vital. Break it down. Daryl: Again, there's that point of view and that point of view and they fight for their sides and unfortunately they throw a lot of misinformation back at each other. So one of the things there there was a big announcement about a week ago with a number of top people with Fish and Wildlife Service, states of Wyoming, Montana, and they made this announcement about a change in the status of grizzly bears. So immediately people were saying, They're gonna start hunting them again. That was one side. The other side was saying, well, it's about time we need to do something to manage it. So it's somewhere in the middle. You know, whenever you hear a story, you hear one side, you hear the other side, and then you hear that somewhere in the middle when you get where you get the truth. So what it was that they're not proposing to take grizzly bears off the threatened endangered the the the T and E list. So they're still going to be listed as threatened species, but they're kind of changing the handling of that species. Now remember, when they were first listed in 1975, there's there's very distinct populations. And I sent you a map to your phone today. I don't know if you had a chance to look at it, but. Stephanne: Going now, sir. Going now. Daryl: But there's very distinct population. So you you have that greater Yellowstone population, you have a population of grizzlies and glacier, there's a couple in Bitterroot, there's the Selkirk Mountains, there's that Cascade Range, there's these little pockets all over. They're spread some the pretty far apart. And then everything surrounding those areas, like extending all the way into the Great Plains and Montana, all the way almost almost to the Pacific Coast. In Washington, there's all that land where these grizzlies currently are protected because they're on the threaten and endangered species list. So they have those federal protections. The problem is, as it stands right now, the way things operate, anything that happens with those bears, it's the Fish and Wildlife Service that will they've got to be the one in control to make the decision and figure out what's gonna happen. You can imagine with bears scattered all over there, there's gonna be lots of instances of conflict that will have to be dealt with relatively quickly. And so what they're suggesting is to give the states the ability to handle those conflicts as they need to handle them without having that final oversight from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Now there's no There's no hunting seasons proposed. I see that look and I know something's coming. But immediately people are saying, they're going to start hunting them. You can't do that. They're still a threatened species. So you can't propose a hunting season. But it does allow the states to better manage these conflict situations. Now shoot me with what you got. Stephanne: Okay. So all I would ask for, I will be I will be perfectly fine, I believe, with this if they were to create an overarching matrix, like a standard, like to think of it as a flow chart, you know, if this then this to lead these agencies to all very similar management techniques. And I say that only because I have dealt with quite a few states as well when it comes to conflict bears or conflict animals. And I'm telling you, there are some states that are like, that bear looked at you wrong. We'll shoot it. Daryl: I Stephanne: That's an embellishment, folks, but it feels that way for me. Daryl: I well, I was gonna say I hate to agree with you, but it's it's a whole good cop, bad cop. 'Cause I I've dealt with people throughout my career that just did not want to deal with those animals. And I re I remember one instance where someone someone who had management authority like didn't want bears getting into their area and Stephanne: They were heavy handed. Daryl: Well and and they talked about those bears were nuisance bears and I said, How do you how do you define a nuisance bear? And they said, If I see it, it's a nuisance. And so that that's that's the bad cop. And y w you gotta hope it's there's bad cops throughout any agency, any organization, anything. The the bad actors, I shouldn't say bad cops, the bad actors. Hopefully the good actors will overcome any of those bad actors. Stephanne: So yeah. Daryl: But I I understand your concern. Stephanne: Yes. I mean, so when I like if you look at like an an incident response system for, you know, for example, and I'm just gonna throw this out there, but if you look at what we would teach, we actually taught that you had a specific matrix to help classify the level of threat that that bear introduces. And they could so easily make something, and that's not asking too much, right? Like just make a guideline. So that there's a standard that everybody has to comply with. If they want to be less harsh than that, cool, but at least set that baseline so we're not going in there just lighting up every bear that we see. That's all I think. I think a lot of people would just be content if we had that middle ground. Daryl: Not. I think that's a great thought and and I I know a couple of states that have a matrix like that. The one problem I see is you can't get people in the same family to agree on stuff. So you're not gonna get you're not gonna get states to agree on stuff. Because the Stephanne: That's the joy of it still being federally listed though. Daryl: Yeah, yeah. No, it i it's a great point. It it's just very difficult because states wanna maintain their autonomy. And it's understandable. If you if you're a state, you wanna be able to dictate how you manage those animals. And so it's a wonderful ask. I don't know if it's gonna go that way. We could be surprised and it it does end up that way. But anyway, none of this is finalized, by the way. This was just recommended. I I believe there's a comment period out there. Stephanne: There is a comment period on here and one of the links that you sent me, I will be commenting and I will be adding my comment about a Daryl: okay. Well, good for you. And everyone is strongly encouraged to comment on that. we will never tell you on this podcast how you should think. We will tell you as many of the facts as we know them so you can make a logical decision on how you should think. but we that's one one of the things I mentioned. We don't like blocking the other side off. Because oftentimes when you sit down and think about it and you hear the other side, you're like, Huh, I never thought of that. Well that's because you were never open to that idea before. So hopefully we expanded your understanding of some things. But I love grizzly bears. I hope the best for I don't know where this is gonna go, but as long as they're on the landscape for me, my kids, your kids, everyone's kids out there to See and enjoy them, I'll be happy. So Stephanne: Agreed. I agreed. How long have we been talking, sir? Daryl: No, it's not too long. It 52 minutes, not too bad. That's not bad, so I'm gonna let you wrap it up. Stephanne: Too long. It's never. Okay. It's not bad. Do you want me to All right, I can do that. So once again, folks, we absolutely love talking to you about wildlife. Obviously, we definitely love talking about wildlife and we do love trying to clear up some of that misinformation that you hear out there. but we also do love listening to you. So if you have any topics that you'd like for us to explore, please reach out to us. You can always reach us through the Wildlife for You Facebook Messenger, or you can email us at WFYQ.com. Daryl: Yes, ma'am, and we really would love to hear from you guys. So whatever topic ideas you may have, any compliments and heck you can even throw a few criticisms if you really don't like them bears out there, but bars I should have said. any criticisms again send directly to Stephanie at Stephanie dot email dot com. But we do thank you for listening, folks, and remember Stephanne: head Daryl: When it comes to wildlife, your knowledge often means their existence. Thank you and be well.