Cattle are prey animals with evolved senses and behaviors to protect themselves from predation. On the contrary, the grizzly bear is the poster child for wildlife predator. So, how does the plaintiff of a Montana federal court case contend that expanding access to public land by the former species would endanger the latter?

To be sure, the cattle in question are not considered a direct threat to grizzly bear populations. Instead, the accusation points to the public land those cattle would occupy. Grizzly bear habitat is already limited, and the argument is that granting grazing access to a larger area could exacerbate the issue.

According to a Missoula Current article by staff writer Monique Merrill, six allotments of land in the Custer-Gallatin National Forest’s Absaroka Mountains are being considered for livestock grazing by the Forest Service. Merrill states three allotments have already been grazed by cattle for over 100 years, but the decision would sanction additional acreage and a prolonged grazing season on those sites. The other three allotments are currently unused for grazing.

In 2021, the Forest Service issued an environmental assessment per the National Environmental Protection Act to authorize the expansion of the grazing allotments, which are located just north of Yellowstone National Park; however, the Western Watersheds Project has since accused the Forest Service of foregoing necessary analysis of the expansion that is required under federal environmental law.

“This is a special place and rugged landscape that remains largely wild. It’s also an area very important for grizzly bear conservation” said Matthew Bishop, an attorney for the nonprofit conservation group.

Bear in mind

To clarify, grizzly bear and brown bear are common names for the same species. According to the National Park Service, the difference between the two is the geographic location an animal lives, which ultimately influences their diet, size, and behavior. Those that live in coastal areas of Alaska are called brown bears, whereas inland bears without access to a menu of marine life are classified as grizzlies. Even though they may be smaller in size without those fishy food sources, grizzly bears can be up to 5-feet tall standing on all fours.

The National Park Service notes various bear species were at one time widespread across the country before habitat loss and unregulated hunting significantly reduced bear populations. Although conservation efforts have encouraged a comeback for bears, the amount of suitable habitat is still suboptimal, and is it largely comprised by public land at national parks.

The Forest Service trails behind the Bureau of Land Management in the amount of ownership of United States public land. With nearly 47% of land west of the Mississippi River considered public, many livestock producers in this part of the country depend on a percentage of public rangeland for grazing purposes. The majority of these accessible acres are leased to farmers and ranchers with term permits, and in addition to supporting beef production, grazing is also considered a cornerstone component of rangeland conservation.

For instance, cattle control brush and invasive species that could otherwise fuel and intensify wildfires. Animal integration onto rangeland has also been shown to rejuvenate watersheds and revive groundwater springs. Some examples of these environmental services were outlined in the Forest Service’s expansion plan.

Even so, during the trial, Bishop contended that escalated human-caused grizzly bear mortality remains a significant problem in the Greater Yellowstone area. This includes mortalities associated with livestock grazing.

No ruling yet

Krystal-Rose Perez, an attorney for the federal defendants, acknowledged higher grizzly bear populations and disbursement have created more conflict among livestock and humans. However, she stated the Forest Service considered this risk during its environmental assessment and concluded it would not be a significant impact in the decision to expand the grazing allotments.

In response, the Western Watersheds Project continued to state the Forest Service failed to take a “hard look” at the consequences that the grazing allotments would have on grizzly bears. The group accused the defendants of relying on outdated standards that ignore the current conditions and cumulative effects of their decision. U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto expressed concern for the brevity of the concise environmental assessment as well.

The Western Watersheds Project ultimately asserted that the possible disruption of bear connectivity on public land is absent from the Forest Services’ environmental assessment. If the environmental assessment were to be vacated, though, those other conservation measures regarding livestock grazing that are outlined in the document would also be dismissed, including invasive grass control and minimizing damage to streams.

DeSoto prompted the conservation group for a solution to the conflict. “What scalpel can I use, under your theory, to allow some of the benefits, including the invasive grass issues and things like that, but not allow the change?” she asked. The group responded that they would request a partial vacatur limited to cattle grazing. DeSoto did not indicate when she would rule.