How do we balance conservation efforts for endangered species like grizzly bears with the needs of human populations living nearby?

Portions Initially Posted to Quora

t’s time to get serious about wildlife conservation and start to think differently about our place in this world. To take into consideration the full measure of our actions and how they have impacted wild things and wild places over the history of mankind. I’m talking about a complete overhaul in the way we think about our species in relation to how we perceive creatures other than ourselves.

The brown bear (of which the grizzly is a subspecies) needs protection throughout the northern hemisphere, but the grizzly is, perhaps, the most studied and decades of progress have already been made on its behalf. From the work we’ve done and the changes we have made for them, and others such the wolf, we have provided a template for managing other large predators all over the world. It’s really not that different. In terms of the grizzly, legislation has been passed on both state and federal levels and a tremendous amount of research was needed before such legislation had a chance of being reviewed. We cannot allow ourselves to backslide even an inch and need to continue to vigorously advocate for grizzlies so they remain plentiful enough overall and in local populations to support a healthy gene pool. The single most important factor in their survival is, as it has always been, habitat preservation (which includes restrictions on human encroachment).

To take it a proactive step further, how about “habitat creation”? This is something that is happening on local levels every time someone or some family has the inclination and wherewithal to deed lands over to outfits such as the Nature Conservancy. But it needs to happen at state and federal levels, as well. As taxpayers and conservationists, wouldn’t we be willing to fund the buying-back of millions of acres of no longer productive western ranchlands? Historical ranching in semi-arid to arid landscapes is dying a slow death as more and more of the nation’s beef is grown in states like Florida and Georgia. Then you have corporate ranching  which occurs when several adjoining family owned and operated ranches are consolidated and economies of scale reduce costs as compared to the smaller family run ranches of the past. But, and perhaps surprisingly, the companies now operating these ranches are largely opposed to seeing more bears and wolves reintroduced to areas proximal to their lands. These are deep-pocketed organizations which should be accountable to their investors, which more than likely are inclined to support such programs that are on the front lines of wildlife advocacy. I believe this is a case where corporate execs are telling their shareholders one thing but doing another, all in the name of maximizing their bottom line which, in turn, makes everyone happy.  If it costs one dime to help in restoring bear and wolf habitat and supporting additional reintroduction efforts, you’ll have to pry open their hands with a crowbar to get at it.

When the dust settles, the remaining ranchers can be slow to embrace change and I can certainly understand why. Every red-blooded American kid wishes they’d grown up on a ranch somewhere out West. But running cows isn’t the only means by which ranches make money. On many mid-to-large ranches, the primary source of income is royalties from oil and natural gas leases, contracts made between the oil and gas producers and ranchers which allow for drilling and subsequent oil and gas production taking place on private ranchlands throughout the Western US.  But there remain areas of land that are home neither to cattle nor to pump jacks. These are the areas of land that I’m referring to as a prime candidate for placing some portion of these lands into conservation agreements which provide for additional wildlife habitat. Aside from offers to buy in dollars, there are incentives built into creating land trusts to help motivate land owners to strike deals with land conservancies, in some cases going so far as to afford these families the opportunity to remain on to work their lands or are at least grant them special access for things like hunting, camping, and fishing. The period of time that these provisions are set in place can be significant and the transfer of ownership can be handled in such a way that it feels as though nothing has changed. One of the oldest philosophies in the history of man is that, on occasion, the few (in this case owners of vast quantities of land) must be compelled to make sacrifices for the good of the many.  I can’t think of a more honorable thing to do than to share a portion of your land holdings so that wildlife has a far greater chance of survival than it would otherwise have had. In my book, that’s about as good as good gets.

Because we as a species are only by default the caretakers of the planet, there have been few (if any) times in our history where long-term planning focused on any species other than our own. We simply plowed ahead without regard for wildlife with one ad-hoc building project on top of another. The result of this kind of thinking has been a “no thinking at all” paradigm in favor of the expansion of man at the expense of everything else. A “Manifest Destiny” approach to first “conquering” and then populating the earth. Why? Because it’s there.

PAfter eons of putting ourselves first (at least early on it was about survival and not hubris and greed), we need to learn how to “share”…remember, that thing they tried so hard to instill in us in kindergarten?! To truly put away trivial matters and materialism and become far better versions of ourselves. Take responsibility for the things we’ve done in the name of advancing only ourselves. Because you personally didn’t clearcut vast parts of the Pacific Northwest doesn’t mean that you didn’t use the resultant lumber or, simply because what comes out of your vehicle’s tailpipe is relatively “clean” doesn’t mean that the electricity you use to fuel it didn’t come from a coal fired electric power plant somewhere in the middle of nowhere, or worse, from the power plants located on native American tribal lands in the “Great American West”. In the end, true understanding and knowledge can only come after ”peeling the onion” until you’ve gone through all the layers and reached the core. As has been echoed throughout our generations, things aren’t always as they seem.

In terms of wildlife conservation, one of the things we need to do next is to find other viable ways to increase existing habitat, more ways to repurpose or create additional wild spaces while making absolutely certain that existing habitat remains unfettered with. Many animals need vast, unadulterated spaces in which to thrive, the grizzly and the wolf are good examples. Let’s learn from the good we’ve done for certain species in certain areas of the country and apply those same philosophies everywhere, while we still can. Let’s say “No” to human encroachment and the “checker-boarding” of what is still open space in Africa. Animals can’t read signs or understand the meaning of fences. Let’s learn to see things through their eyes. The Africa that most of us conjure when we hear the word is already gone. Dozens of species will reach extinction in the next twenty to thirty years, losing numerous species each year along the way.

When you look upon living amongst these threatened predators, view it as if it were an honor. If you’re not built that way, having enough space to suit your need to dominate less fortunate people is an entitlement which exists only in your mind, Things are good only as long they are designed so you and yours come first. Eradicating these animals is no longer an option, as we’ve at least come that far as a society. There are serious fines and even jail time in store for those convicted of killing a member of any endangered species. In places where bears and wolves once roamed with only the competition from each other to keep their numbers in-line, along with other limitations imposed by the natural world, itself. Ma Nature was doing just fine on her own before she received unwanted help from us. I strongly believe that if you live in areas where you’re likely to cross paths with these animals as their populations have come back to sustainable levels, and you just can’t abide the idea, then move to a more “civilized” place. After all, they are still the places where the majority of people choose to live. Or, you can continue to be different because you never wanted to be a part of the “masses” in the first place. You wanted to be freer, to have more space in which to live and raise a family. I spent much of my life moving to more and more remote settings in Colorado because of my chosen mountain lifestyle, each time shedding a part of Colorado which had become too populated to satisfy my need to live where wilderness and wild things were nearby. This choice was often at the expense of being better compensated for my work. I made these concessions knowingly and, in looking back, I have never regretted any move I chose to make in exchanging what was fast becoming just another part of the “concrete world” for wide open country. The wilder the place the more vested I became in remaining.

On the subject of wildlife conservation, the time to “choose sides” was thirty years ago so that those of us who truly care would have had more time to convince those of you who don’t. What we have instead is a world where few care enough to try and make a difference, and a mass of unmoving apathy…like an elephant sitting atop a mouse.

The time has come to save more than the wolf and grizzly. In the long and arduous process of saving wild things and wild places, we might just be able to save ourselves.