Living with Predators: A 20-Year Case Study in the Blackfoot River Watershed of Montana

Abstract

This chapter describes 20 years of efforts to live with large carnivores in the Blackfoot watershed located in western Montana with a focus on the processes and projects that were developed to adapt to the presence of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) under the capacity of a non-governmental organization called the Blackfoot Challenge. Initial efforts were focused on generating a shared understanding of the problem, engaging community members in the co-generation of data, and designing an inclusive decision-making process that led to the adoption of a suite of tools that represented the values of stakeholders who represented communities of place and interest. Between 2003 and 2018, damages and livestock depredations by grizzlies tended to remain below 10 conflicts per year. Confirmed and probable livestock depredations show a low level of 1.8 annual livestock losses per year to grizzlies. Between 2007 and 2020, the wolf population increased and eventually leveled off, while livestock losses to wolves remained low. Annual confirmed livestock losses to wolves have been 3.3 livestock per year with less than four wolves removed annually due to depredations in the core project area. The central lesson of this effort is that living with large carnivores requires bringing people together to build trust, to generate a shared understanding of the problem using science, and to develop a participatory and equitable approach for changing practices and adopting tools that foster coexistence with carnivores.

1 Introduction

When large carnivore populations overlap with humans and agricultural activities, interactions can be problematic for people and livestock, and particularly for carnivores. In North America, large carnivores, such as grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and gray wolves (Canis lupus), are generally less tolerated outside of designated protected areas (Mattson et al. 1996). When incidents or conflicts occur outside of protected areas, carnivores are often legally trapped, relocated, or removed from populations by wildlife managers. This pattern of conflict is often concentrated when human activities occur on and at the interface of public and private rangelands (Woodruff and Ginsberg 1998; Wilson et al. 2006). Since grizzly bears and gray wolves are generalist species who range widely and use a variety of habitats to satisfy their life history requirements, it is arguable that long-term population persistence is largely governed by human values, behaviors, and land use practices (Mattson et al. 1996; Boitani 2003). With increasing societal demands being placed on natural resources, finding ways to sustain populations of grizzly bears and wolves at landscape scales while incorporating rural livelihoods such as livestock production on rangelands becomes a critical conservation challenge in the American West.

This chapter describes two decades of efforts of living with large carnivores and a suite of projects designed to reduce conflict in the Blackfoot River watershed located in western Montana with a focus on grizzly bears and gray wolves. The purpose of this chapter is to describe how a rural community came together with wildlife agencies and conservation groups to grapple with the complex challenge of adapting to the presence of grizzly bears and wolves over time as both of these large carnivores recolonized this region.

This effort started approximately twenty years ago when Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Blackfoot Challenge (BC)—a grassroots watershed group in the Blackfoot Valley—began meeting to discuss concerns among local residents about increasing grizzly bear activity and conflicts in the watershed and surrounding region. Beginning in the early 2000s, grizzly bears re-expanded their range onto private lands, causing conflict and concern among local residents. By 2007, gray wolves began to establish territories in the watershed after population expansion following reintroduction efforts in the mid-1990s to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. There was a clear need to bring people together to determine exactly how to define and address the growing concerns over the renewed carnivore presence.

This chapter emphasizes how a collective decision-making process encouraged diverse local and national stakeholders to engage in a partnership where participatory efforts helped to reduce conflicts for bears, wolves, and people. The capacity of the Blackfoot Challenge was pivotal for forging new connections with state and federal agencies, conservation groups, private landowners, residents, and livestock producers.

The first third of this chapter focuses on the process of community-based conservation that helped generate a shared understanding of problem to facilitate adapting and responding to grizzlies and wolves, how the local community was engaged in co-generation of data, and how an inclusive decision-making process led to the adoption of prevention tools that ultimately serve the common interest. The second section of this chapter discusses specific projects and tools such as electric fencing of calving areas, livestock carcass removal, management of human attractants from bears, and range rider efforts that were developed with community support that have helped reduce conflicts with grizzlies and wolves. This chapter concludes with practical lessons and recommendations useful to practitioners including wildlife managers, livestock producers, landowners, natural resource professionals, conservationists, and rural community members who live with large carnivores.

1.1 Conflicts with Grizzly Bears and Wolves

There are a variety of human-grizzly bear conflicts or incidents that typically occur on privately owned rangelands and include bears killing livestock, destroying beehives, foraging for garbage close to homes, or, in rare cases, threatening human safety (Wilson et al. 2006). Often, private rangelands in valley bottoms and foothills adjacent to public lands are problematic zones, especially when available bear attractants coincide with occupied grizzly bear habitat. Researchers have found that ranches in areas close to rivers and streams, with extensive habitat edges and at lower elevations are most susceptible to chronic conflicts with grizzly bears (Wilson et al. 2006; Northrup et al. 2012). Repeated incidents typically lead to more severe conflict, habituation, and eventually to management removal of bears through trapping, relocation or euthanasia by wildlife authorities. Additionally, private rangelands in livestock production adjacent to public lands are typically problematic zones for wolves and livestock since wolves can easily access private agricultural land (Bradley and Pletscher 2005; DeCesare et al. 2018). Repeated incidents with livestock typically lead to wolf removals. In these cases, outcomes are unfortunate for both those losing livestock and for the wolves themselves. One solution to breaking this cycle is to focus efforts on preventative measures that proactively address wolf-livestock and grizzly bear-livestock conflict. This position implicitly recognizes that long-term conservation and management of both grizzly bears wolves in places like Montana will require some level of human acceptance, tolerance and ultimately some changes in husbandry practices that help reduce conflicts with both bears and wolves. The Blackfoot watershed contains landownership patterns common in the West, namely a mix a public and private lands and a tradition of ranching on private and public rangelands and has abundant habitat that supports both grizzly bears and wolves.

1.2 Project Area

The project area is located in the Blackfoot watershed of west central Montana (Fig. 28.1). To the north of the 610,000-hectare watershed, United States Forest Service designated wilderness areas, Blackfeet and Flathead Reservations, and Waterton Glacier International Peace Park, comprise slightly more than 4 million hectares of rugged and largely protected landscape that is popularly referred to as the Crown of the Continent (COC) ecosystem (UNESCO 2021). The US Fish and Wildlife Service has designated a large portion of this ecosystem as an official grizzly bear recovery zone since the area has supported a population of grizzlies prior to European settlement. This source population has gradually increased over the past two decades and grizzly bear activity and dispersal events have been on the rise in the watershed since the late 2000s (Kendall et al. 2009). Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks estimate that the population has grown at approximately 3 percent per year since population trend monitoring began in 2004 (Costello et al. 2016).

Fig. 28.1

Location of Blackfoot River watershed within western Montana’s Crown of the Continent Ecosystem

The geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the Blackfoot watershed have resulted in extensive community types including wetlands, bogs, fens, spring creeks, riparian swamps, and extensive cottonwood forests. This diverse mosaic of upland foothills, glacial outwash plains, grasslands and extensive creek and river bottoms is quality habitat for a wide array of wildlife including grizzly bears and wolves. The Blackfoot watershed has remained largely undeveloped, is rural in character, and is sparsely populated. Being located at the southern end of the COC, the watershed has been a natural location for grizzly bears to re-colonize former habitat. Additionally, the watershed was recolonized by wolves beginning in 2007.

1.3 Communities of Place and Communities of Interest

Stakeholders involved in grizzly bear and wolf conservation and management can be organized into communities of place and communities of interest (Wilson and Clark 2007). These stakeholders include those who live and work in the watershed who hold largely rural values and those communities of interest—often urban-based populations who support nature conservation, wildlife protection, and national goals of species protection as embodied in the Endangered Species Act (Chapter 29). Many of the conservation groups and state and federal agencies involved in bear and wolf recovery can be said to represent regional and national communities of interest who support wildlife conservation. Key groups who have a stake in large carnivores include ranchers, non-ranching residents, state and federal governments, and conservation groups. There are approximately 2,500 households in seven small communities located throughout the watershed. The dominant land use is primarily family-owned cow/calf ranching operations and some small-scale forestry.

Landowners in the Blackfoot have cherished their rural way of life and have worked together for generations to maintain agricultural traditions, open space, and rural livelihoods. The ranching community takes pride in an independent life style, yet ranchers also value strong neighborly relationships and sharing seasonal labor demands (e.g., haying) characteristic of North American agrarian communities (Bennett 1967). Private property rights and economic viability are also important values held by the ranching community. Initially with grizzly bears reoccupying the watershed in the early 2000s and followed by wolves, carnivores were initially perceived as unwelcome visitors that threatened livelihoods and human safety.

While ranching is still a dominant land use in the watershed and the cultural norms of ranchers have permeated the general character of the valley, new residents have increasingly moved to the region. In many respects these newcomers are amenity migrants, who have been drawn to the Blackfoot for its beauty, open space, recreation opportunities, and abundant wildlife. These new residents are typically tolerant of grizzly bears and wolves, but in some cases, have limited experience with actually living with them. However, new residents have been willing and, in certain cases, enthusiastic, about participating in the grizzly bear and wolf related projects of the BC.

Currently Montana FWP plays the main role in grizzly bear management in the Blackfoot watershed. FWP is responsible for day-to-day management of grizzlies (e.g., conflict responses, monitoring) in consultation with the USFWS under the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) guidelines (IGBC 2021). FWP respects traditional ranching livelihoods in Montana, has actively embraced the collaborative nature of the BC partnership concerning grizzly bear management, and actively supports projects that help maintain rural ranching through economic incentives and technical support (Jonkel 2002). Similarly, FWP has current management authority for gray wolves in Montana and coordinates with USDA Wildlife Services for forensic investigations of confirmed and suspected livestock depredations from grizzly bears and wolves. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Montana State Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) play minor consultative roles in bear and wolf habitat management and have taken part in the BC efforts on an as needed, project-by-project basis, since the bulk of the BC work on grizzly bear and wolves has focused on private rangelands. Non-government conservation groups (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Vital Ground, Defenders of Wildlife, Brown Bear Resources, the Great Bear Foundation, and the Living with Wildlife Foundation) have also been active participants in the efforts of the BC partnership.

2 The Blackfoot Challenge

The Blackfoot Challenge was incorporated as a non-governmental organization (NGO) in 1993. However, the BC origins date back to the early work of visionary landowners in the 1970s who saw opportunities to conserve and manage land, water, and wildlife in a more holistic way. This approach was based on the premise that collaboration is central to effective conservation (Blackfoot Challenge 2021).

The BC has played a central role as the organization in the 610,000-hectare watershed that has brought people together and facilitated respectful conversations to generate bottom-up solutions embedded in public and private partnerships. The BC mission, “To coordinate efforts to conserve and enhance natural resources and the rural way of life in the Blackfoot watershed for present and future generations,” has brought communities of place and interest together to generate a culture of conservation defined by inclusiveness, collaboration, transparency, and most importantly, trust. In turn, these core values provide the overarching framework for a robust, consensus-driven process that committees and work groups use to implement conservation across programs. At the heart of the process is the recognition that conservation rests upon the support of communities of place and communities of interest—where local and broad public values converge (Wilson and Clark 2007). The BC programs reflect this convergence of local and national interests and has allowed robust programs that leverage funding, scientific expertise, technical skills, and local knowledge that generate lasting collective conservation impacts across the watershed. The BC works to build effective partnerships and working relationships based on trust, respect, credibility, and the ability to empathize across a diversity of values. While difficult to measure, these intangibles help build what Robert Putnam terms, social capita and have been benchmarks of the Blackfoot Challenge’s success (Putnam 2000). This has allowed the BC and partners to take on complex and difficult conservation challenges like coexisting with grizzly bears and wolves. Additionally, other noteworthy conservation successes include: 52,600 hectares of land permanently protected from development, creation of a 2,300 hectare community-owned and managed forest, restoration of west slope cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) habitat, a voluntary drought response plan to maintain in-stream flows in the Blackfoot River, restoration of native trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator), and improvements to native grasslands and soil health across hundreds of working ranches.

2.1 Collaboration Before Conflict

The Blackfoot Challenge has developed a partner-based culture of conservation that helps foster collaboration before conflict. This is achieved in two fundamental ways—non-advocacy and a consensus-driven approach. The BC process led and fostered by local landowners, residents, staff, and an elected Board of Directors has allowed the BC to act as the forum in the watershed for encouraging civic and rational engagement focused on a variety of natural resource issues without taking a particular position. The non-advocacy and non-litigatory stance of the organization has earned the trust and support of local residents who represent diverse values. And like much of the Western landscape, the Blackfoot watershed contains a mix of public and private lands that are cherished and contested by stakeholders who desire resource use, recreation, and non-consumptive ecosystem services.

This framework allows the BC to tackle a range of issues, from simple to complex or contentious. A rule of thumb known as the 80:20 rule encourages stakeholders to work first on the figurative 80% of an issue where agreement may be found and then address the harder 20% of an issue. Or in other cases, set aside those more intractable 20% of issues until simpler problems can be solved. This step-wise process often helps build trust, credibility and goodwill that can allow stakeholders to find mutually beneficial outcomes initially and in turn, help participants address more complex and difficult issues as needed.

The BC is both a process and a project-based organization driven by stakeholder priorities. In a given year, the BC and dozens of key partners are engaged in hundreds of projects from management of a community-owned forest, soil moisture monitoring, reintroduction of trumpeter swans, to removing livestock carcasses from ranches that would otherwise attract grizzlies and wolves into potential conflict. The BC relies on seven committees and respective work groups to address a range of conservation issues. Each committee is chaired by a landowner to ensure that local values are taken into account. Another mechanism that has helped the BC work successfully with local, state, and federal land management agencies has been to invite key people from leadership positions from the various agencies to serve as Board Members and Board Partners. Often these board members are well-placed decision-makers from state and federal agencies whose management jurisdictions fall within the Blackfoot watershed. Committee membership is naturally driven by the specific natural resource issue and interests of stakeholders and has allowed representatives from FWP, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and FWS to take active roles in issues related to forestry, grazing management, or wildlife.

In many respects the BC serves as a parallel institution of governance within the watershed and is able to harness and engender the collective good will of stakeholders who are willing to take part in the process of collaboration. This capacity has been critical for addressing controversial issues such as grizzly bear population expansion onto private agricultural lands and eventual wolf recolonization of the watershed that began in 2007.

2.2 Developing a Shared Understanding of the Problem

Grizzly bears began reoccupying the Blackfoot watershed in the mid-1990s and the first reported and verified conflicts began by 1998 (Jonkel 2002; Fig. 28.2). Conflicts ranged from livestock losses to predation, beehive damage, property damage, sanitation, to human-bear encounters, and bears in close proximity to dwellings. In 2001, a hunter was killed from an encounter with a female grizzly bear with cubs. This event caused widespread concern and anxiety among landowners and residents but also created a point of entry to address the emerging problem of human-grizzly bear conflicts and led to the formation of the Blackfoot Challenge Wildlife Committee in 2001 (Wilson and Clark 2007). BC Wildlife Committee members (approx. 45) included landowners, ranchers, and residents from the Blackfoot watershed and managers from FWP, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Montana (MT) Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (FWS), U.S. Forest Service, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS), and MT DNRC. Additional NGO members included representatives from Defenders of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, and Living with Wildlife Foundation. The committee represented the respective landownerships and management jurisdictions in the watershed both public and private, resulting in a regular dialogue among various stakeholders who represented communities of place and communities of interest (Wilson and Clark 2007).

Fig. 28.2

Example of GIS mapping of ranching land uses with calving areas (blue polygons) and boneyards (yellow squares) that are known to be attractive to grizzly bears and increase the risk of conflicts with bears

Stakeholders at that time believed that working under the existing framework of the BC was a pragmatic and thoughtful way to approach the presence of grizzly bears. Instead of trying to build a stand-alone effort, the BC offered a forum for working with ranchers, landowners, conservation groups, and agencies. It was apparent at the time that a partnership-based approach would be needed to respond to increasing conflicts with grizzly bears and that significant decision-making power would need to be in the hands of those landowners and ranchers who confronted daily realities of living with bears (Wilson et al. 2014, 2017). The BC and FWP met to discuss a more formal arrangement where interested parties could directly engage local community members in wildlife management (Wilson et al. 2014). Subsequently the BC agreed to form the BC Wildlife Committee with the understanding that the initial focus would respond to grizzly bears.

2.3 Livestock Producer Perceptions of Grizzly Bears

A first action of the BC Wildlife Committee was to conduct an in-person survey of livestock producer perceptions of grizzly bears within the Blackfoot watershed. In 2002 the BC Wildlife Committee surveyed thirty-five ranchers, outfitters, and small-scale ranch operators using a pre-tested closed-and-opened ended survey. The responses helped describe how residents’ livelihoods could be impacted by grizzly bears (Wilson et al. 2014).

The surveys and discussions in group meetings revealed that local ranchers had varying and complex opinions on living with grizzly bears (Table 28.1). Some respondents took a pragmatic view, with concerns focused on human safety, protecting property and livelihood interests, and the need for more information about bears and bear management—all areas that theoretically could be addressed by understanding the problem as one of risk management and improving information sharing. Other perspectives were more difficult to address. For example, 52% of respondents explained that grizzly bears should be geographically separated from human activities as a way to solve the problem and 71% of respondents felt that there were simply too many bears using private lands. In small group discussions, sentiments such as “environmentalists were the cause of our bear problem” were expressed. These types of problem definitions posed barriers to constructive discussions about how best to respond, since there were no feasible solutions available if the problem was characterized in these ways. This exercise provided a practical pathway forward for framing discussions that enabled the BC Wildlife Committee to co-generate goals that focused on four core issues important to stakeholders: (1) protecting human safety, (2) protecting private property from bear damage, (3) protecting rural livelihoods, and (4) improving information sharing from wildlife managers about grizzly bear behavior and management to stakeholders.

Table 28.1 Likert-scaled statements regarding perceptions of grizzly bear activity and appropriate landowner/resident behaviors in the Blackfoot watershed, Montana (adapted from Wilson et al. 2014)

During the survey, data were also collected on the spatial locations of a variety of livestock management practices and attractants that were leading to conflicts with grizzly bears (Jonkel 2002). These included locations of calving areas, boneyards, and beehives relative to habitat used by grizzly bears. Calving areas where newborn calves are born attract grizzly bears due to the vulnerability of calves and afterbirth (Mattson 1990; Wilson et al. 2006). Boneyards are spatially fixed locations where livestock carcasses have been deposited over time during calving season and attract bears (Wilson et al. 2005). Beehives have been a long-time source of conflict for both grizzly and black bears (Ursus americanus) and are also spatially fixed (Mattson 1990). Mapping these types of attractants was critical for understanding the scale at which bear conflicts were playing out, where conflict densities were greatest, and helped stakeholders visually register that a collective response across private ranch ownerships and with hundreds of residents would be necessary to address conflicts at the biological scale of grizzly bear foraging bouts (1.6 km² based on Wilson et al. 2005) and bear home ranges.

2.4 Co-Generation of Data—Understanding the Scale of Grizzly Bear Conflict

Geographic information systems (GIS) were used to map and analyze ranching land use practices and other ecological features that were known to be associated with an increased risk of conflict (Wilson et al. 2006; Fig. 28.2). Interactive GIS mapping sessions were conducted with 35 active ranchers in the Blackfoot watershed using methods developed by Wilson et al. (2005, 2006). Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks shared data on reported and verified grizzly bear conflicts and observations (1998–2004) that were then used to analyze and prioritize where in the landscape to focus initial conflict mitigation efforts.

The co-generated GIS maps were shared with the ranching community through the BC Wildlife Committee to address problems over the next decade, namely through continued GIS mapping and monitoring of boneyards and calving areas, electric fencing of high-risk calving areas, and eventual phase out of boneyards that was replaced by a livestock carcass removal program. Conflict reduction efforts were focused on the middle portion of the Blackfoot watershed where there were the greatest densities of bears and past conflicts. Recently the BC Wildlife Committee and FWS have contracted a newly updated GIS spatial hotspot analysis that builds off of our early GIS work (Williams and Hebblewhite 2021) and will help guide another round of conservation investment—beginning with $300,000 in conflict hotspot mitigation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) using electric fencing and a new innovation in drive-over electrified mat system that can replace the need to use a traditional swing gate (Fig. 28.3).

Fig. 28.3

Examples of tools and technologies used by the BC Wildlife Committee to reduce conflicts with grizzly bears and wolves including drive-over electric mats, calving area electric fences, beehive/apiary electric fences, range rider, and fladry

2.5 Co-Generation of Data—Estimating Wolf Pack Numbers and Distribution

The first known wolf territory in the Blackfoot watershed was established in 2007 and the first confirmed livestock depredations were recorded in 2008 by Wildlife Services. Rumors circulating in the community regarding the size and distribution of the wolf population were brought to the BC Wildlife Committee meetings and created another point of entry for FWP and the BC Wildlife Committee to address the perception that the “valley was being overrun by wolves”, a refrain commonly heard in informal settings. Under the guidance of FWP, the BC Wildlife Committee engaged community members in conducting an annual winter wolf track survey to generate a better collective understanding of wolf abundance, approximate distribution, and general activity within the watershed.

Through the BC Wildlife Committee, permission was granted from dozens of ranchers to conduct a winter wolf track survey across their private lands. Volunteers from FWP, FWS-Partners Program, US Forest Service, BLM, and university collaborators worked together to conduct wolf track surveys during 3 days in late January over a large portion of the watershed identified as wolf habitat. As the effort developed, more than one hundred volunteers took part annually over the next four years. Volunteers recorded and provided sign observations to FWP wolf management specialists who then estimated the annual number of wolf packs, total wolf numbers, and approximate distribution; the annual report was then shared with the community and discussed in subsequent BC Wildlife Committee meetings.

An important benefit from this collaborative effort was that the co-generation of data on wolf activity with community members helped dispel rumors that there were large numbers of wolves in the watershed. Residents could literally see for themselves wolf tracks, sign, and better understand how wolves and respective wolf packs used the landscape. In many cases participants learned firsthand that what they initially believed to be multiple wolf packs was in fact, a single group using a large territory. Simultaneously, the joint effort with the community to conduct winter wolf surveys provided an opportunity for FWP and community members to share knowledge about the behavior and general ecology of wolves. Similar to the collaborative learning process that took place five years earlier with grizzly bears, the information sharing from FWP and community members increased trust and credibility and the believability of data about wolves among stakeholders—important cornerstones that helped increased participation by livestock producers in future projects (Wilson et al. 2017).

2.6 Inclusive Decision-Making—Balancing Communities of Place and Interest

The process of working with stakeholders to orient to the perceived problem of having grizzly bears and wolves back in the Blackfoot watershed was an investment in trust and inclusion, and the process of co-generating data helped bring the scale at which grizzly bears and wolves fulfill life history needs into biological focus. The BC Wildlife Committee provided an inclusive forum that humanized representatives of wildlife agencies, NGOs, and the livestock community through face-to-face meetings among people. Biological information on grizzly bears was readily shared with the community by FWP management specialists and became a critical part of regular meeting updates and helped to reduce anxiety about human safety, bear numbers, densities, and habitat use. Ranchers were also willing to share information about their operations and bear activity they observed—making the overall picture of grizzly bear use in the Blackfoot watershed much clearer and more comprehensive for all stakeholders.

Although grizzly bears were the initial focus of BC Wildlife Committee efforts, with wolves reoccupying the watershed, the BC Wildlife Committee and partners saw opportunities to build off the social capital that had been generated around the response to grizzlies and provided the opportunity to expand and refine on-going projects and develop new projects, anticipating wolf population growth in the watershed (Wilson et al. 2017).

3 Participatory Projects to Further Coexistence

The BC Wildlife Committee approached livestock producers, landowners, and residents with the hope that projects would be participatory and pragmatic—in other words, projects would only be useful to stakeholders if each effort was carefully planned and implemented with attention to the needs of the landowner, site conditions, and costs. For nearly all projects the BC Wildlife Committee and partners have provided substantial economic cost-share support and landowners have responded with in-kind labor and in other cases, equipment donations.

3.1 Livestock Protection: Electric Fences for Calving Areas and Apiaries; Fladry Fences to Deter Wolves

Cow-calf ranches in the Blackfoot watershed are characterized by winter feeding, centralized and spatially fixed operations, irrigated hay production, and docile breeds of cattle (Dale 1960; Jordan 1993). The calving season typically overlaps with the emergence of grizzly bears from their dens in the early spring. Spring calving/lambing is a time of high risk for livestock, as the young are small and more vulnerable to predation. Bears routinely visit calving areas, and the traditional practice of depositing dead livestock into boneyards (carcass dumps) can lead to chronic livestock-grizzly bear conflicts (Wilson et al. 2006). The first calving area fences in the Blackfoot watershed were built in 2001 as a proven non-lethal method to deter grizzly bears from newborn calves. As of 2021, there are 18 calving area fences constructed on 12 individual ranches and an additional 10 electric fences protecting municipal transfer sites (3) and dwellings (7). The construction of fences was paid for using funds from public and private foundations, FWP, NRCS, and the FWS-Partners Program, and provided ranchers with substantial cost savings on the capital investments. Fences were designed at that time to be both grizzly bear and wolf resistant using a combination of fencing guidelines from FWP, the US Forest Service, and the Province of Alberta where ranchers had long-time experience using electric fences to protect livestock from grizzlies and wolves (Fig. 28.3). Ranchers helped share the total costs through their in-kind donations of labor to prepare sites and remove old fences. At first, some ranchers were concerned that electric fences would require excessive maintenance or would be susceptible to ungulate damage. In some cases, ranchers were unfamiliar with the technical aspects of electric fencing, and the adoption of this new technology challenged norms such as pride in their self-reliance regarding routine work like fixing barbed wire fences (Wilson et al. 2014). Over time, nearly all electric fences have been maintained by ranchers and in only a few cases, did fences fall into disrepair. The BC Wildlife Committee conducts regular inventory of all existing electric fences throughout the watershed and prioritizes maintenance based on sites in high conflict risk areas.

Apiaries, also known as beehives, present food attractants for grizzly bears in the Blackfoot watershed. Early GIS mapping analysis identified beehives that were in high risk areas throughout the watershed and the BC Wildlife Committee has worked closely with two commercial beekeepers over the past two decades to cost-share construction of permanent electric fences (Fig. 28.3). Based on inventories from the two commercial beekeepers who work in the watershed, there are approximately 55–60 apiaries sites with permanent, solar-powered electric fences that have proven extremely effective in preventing damage by grizzly bears and black bears.

Another tool that was useful was fladry. This is a type of fencing that uses interspersed flagging attached to a line, cord, or electrified poly-wire to create a psychological avoidance response (novel stimuli) in wolves and has been shown to be an effective way to deter wolves when strung around livestock pastures (Musiani et al. 2003). Electrified fladry, using a line of poly-wire, reinforces a fear response in wolves by adding an electric shock (Lance et al. 2010; Fig. 28.3).

3.2 Managing Agricultural Attractants: Boneyards and Livestock Carcass Removal

Livestock carcasses and boneyards can be an attractant for wolves and grizzly bears and bring them into closer proximity to livestock production areas thereby increasing risk of depredations (Fig. 28.4). Phasing out boneyards and regular carcass removal was designed to remove the cows, calves, ewes, and other livestock that naturally die during the calving and lambing season (mid-February through mid-May), so that carcasses would not be found by foraging grizzly bears and wolves.

Fig. 28.4

Examples of boneyards, livestock carcass removal and composting, managing household attractants, and an electric fence on a municipal waste transfer station

In addition, livestock depredations by wolves in the Western United States peak in early spring and fall each year (Musiani et al. 2005). In southwest Alberta where cattle operations, husbandry practices, range use, and terrain are similar to the Blackfoot watershed, researchers found that 85% of all wolf scavenging events occurred on ranchers’ boneyards (Morehouse and Boyce 2011). Phasing out boneyards and replacing them with regular carcass removal was designed to remove livestock that naturally die during the calving and lambing season (mid-February through mid-May), so that carcasses would not attract foraging grizzly bears and wolves (Fig. 28.4).

The initial efforts to remove livestock carcasses generated concern from ranchers who did not want to have numbers of livestock deaths on their ranches disclosed to neighbors for fear of being stigmatized as deficient in animal husbandry (Wilson et al. 2014). This concern was addressed by establishing centralized drop-off locations where ranchers could bring carcasses anonymously for pick up. Participation steadily increased in the program in the early 2000s. Today the program covers nearly 4,860 km² across four western Montana counties and annually has 110–120 ranches actively participating representing roughly 90% of the total producers in the livestock carcass program area. More than 11,500 carcasses have been removed since the program began in 2003 and approximately 600 carcasses are removed annually. Livestock carcasses are composted at multiple facilities in the region (Fig. 28.4).

The carcass removal program has been enormously successful. In addition to decreasing conflict with carnivores, Montana Department of Transportation, a key partner in the effort, has successfully used the compost by-product on a variety of revegetation projects as well (Fig. 28.4). Composting livestock carcasses has proven to be a highly effective disposal method and has been widely applauded by the ranching community as a more appealing method of disposal than past practices of depositing carcasses on boneyards on their properties or removing carcasses to nearby landfills. The program relies on a mixture of public and private funding and in-kind and cash donations from partners and the ranching community to make the service virtually free to the ranching community.

3.3 Managing Household Attractants: Neighbor Networks

In addition to managing agricultural attractants with ranchers, the BC Wildlife Committee worked closely with residents to help increase communication about grizzly bear activity and to provide the means to remove or contain a variety of household attractants that could lead to conflict with grizzlies. As a first step, the BC Wildlife Committee helped to organize residents through a Neighbor Network using the Powell County 911 database to identify occupied households and connect local residents originally through phone trees and later through social media platforms. The network consists of over 120 residents who work together to accomplish the following: (1) minimize the availability of human-related attractants, (2) communicate among neighbors about grizzly bear and wolf activity using phone-trees, e-mail alerts, and social media and (3) provide a centralized reporting location for incidents or observations of bear or wolf behavior that may pose problems. The goal of this effort is to improve communication among neighbors and with Montana FWP in order to prevent conflicts with carnivores from starting in the first place. Nine networks are operational within the project area, each with a coordinator, to help facilitate communication among neighbors and to FWP when there is grizzly bear or wolf activity. A free check-out program administered by the BC Wildlife Committee allows residents to borrow bear resistant trash cans, portable electric fencing, electrified bird feeders, and other non-lethal deterrent tools to prevent conflicts. The BC Wildlife Committee, FWS, Defenders of Wildlife and FWP help provide funding to support the program.

The BC Wildlife Committee also focuses on common sense management of waste and household garbage for all residents of the Blackfoot. The BC Wildlife Committee has worked closely with waste haulers and residents to encourage use of bear resistant garbage cans and to take simple precautions to keep garbage secure from scavengers (Fig. 28.4). Additionally, all rural transfer sites (3) within the watershed have permanent electric fences to deter grizzly bears from scavenging on garbage (Fig. 28.4).

3.4 Livestock and Wolf Monitoring Using Range Riders—2008–2020

Livestock herd supervision, practiced for centuries throughout the world, is a proven tool to help reduce livestock losses to carnivores including wolves (Boitani 2003). Researchers have found that the spatial distributions of predator and prey species vary with human activity levels (Hebblewhite et al. 2005; Muhly et al. 2011). Prey species were more prevalent in areas with high human activity and predator species including wolves avoided high human use areas—hence the justification for increasing herd supervision rates by using range riders (Wells et al. 2019). Ranchers in the Blackfoot watershed were supportive and welcomed the use of range riders as a tool to reduce problems with wolves.

With the arrival of wolves in 2007 and subsequent depredations, several ranchers were concerned, particularly those whose private lands and public grazing allotments fell within the newly established territories. The BC Wildlife Committee responded and worked closely with a prominent ranching family that was concerned and hired a family member and an assistant to pilot test the first range rider effort in the watershed. Using a volunteer agreement with FWP, the range rider was trained in ground-based, VHF telemetry use to detect radio collared wolves and to detect wolf tracks and sign. Livestock were checked daily by the range rider throughout the grazing season (May 1–October 31) on public grazing allotments on horseback, all-terrain vehicles, and a truck. There were no known livestock depredations by wolves on this ranch for that first season.

Piloting the range rider program with a well-respected ranch family and hiring a local community member who was highly competent and well-regarded resulted in a favorable response from the ranching community that range riders could be a workable solution to wolf predation. Additionally, FWP and the BC Wildlife Committee earned credibility from the ranching community by responding to the perceived threat of wolves in a timely manner. As the wolf population increased steadily, and wolf packs became widely distributed throughout the watershed, range riders were perceived as a useful tool for reducing the risk of livestock depredations for dozens of livestock producers (Sime et al. 2011; Hanauska-Brown et al. 2012). At the time of this writing, the BC currently employs (2) full-time and (1) part-time range rider that work closely with the BC Wildlife Committee coordinator. On a given year from 2007–2020, range riders and assistants worked closely with 15–18 ranchers to monitor approximately 4,600 head of livestock, across 78,900 acres in five communities in the Blackfoot watershed (Fig. 28.3). Range riders were in direct contact with another 40–50 livestock producers and ranchers and produced a bi-weekly wolf report that was e-mailed to another 150 interested stakeholders and posted on the Blackfoot Challenge’s website.

While range riders helped increase human presence, riders also took proactive actions in cooperation with participating ranchers that included the following: (1) delayed pasture use when wolves were present, (2) detection and recovery of lost livestock, (3) detection and removal of sick / injured livestock, (4) detection and removal (when possible) of naturally occurring livestock carcasses, (5) detection of livestock carcasses from predation for investigation by Wildlife Services for possible compensation by the State of Montana, (6) general herd health surveillance, (7) deployment of fladry when needed, and (8) assisting producers with fall gathering and assessment of cause of death for possible missing livestock (Wilson et al. 2017).

The range rider effort in the Blackfoot watershed has been supported by the livestock community and invested stakeholders. While increased herd supervision rates and human presence may help reduce the frequency of encounter rates between livestock and wolves and subsequent depredations, this metric is difficult to measure without rigorous pre-and-post quasi-experimental design. Nonetheless, a value-added benefit from this effort has been increased and improved communication among stakeholders about wolf activity, wolf pack locations, and the proactive actions that range riders and ranchers collectively take. A researcher who conducted extensive interviews with participating ranchers in the range rider program found similar responses by participants involved in the effort (Parks 2015). Directly engaging ranchers in the effort by the range riders helped producers feel supported by FWP and the BC Wildlife Committee, and having more intensive livestock herd monitoring reduced their anxiety about wolves and potential livestock losses. Additionally, range riders were helpful in detecting livestock killed from natural causes and not from carnivores—an important way to reduce the chances that wolves or other carnivores were blamed for suspected losses (Wilson et al. 2017).

4 Conservation Impacts

The willingness of landowners, ranchers, and residents to work with a diversity of stakeholders to reduce conflicts with grizzly bears and wolves was encouraging. According to FWP Region 2 data for the core project area where prevention efforts have been focused over the past two decades, there has been an approximate 71% decrease in property damage and livestock depredations from grizzly bears from 2003 to 2019 with the exception of 2018. Over the past seven years, damages and depredations by grizzlies tended to remain below 10 conflicts per year with the exception of 2018. The Montana Livestock Loss Board’s data on confirmed and probable livestock depredations only also suggests a decrease in livestock losses and a low level of 1.8 annual livestock losses per year to grizzlies over the past 23 years (Fig. 28.5). From 1998–2019 there were five confirmed grizzly bear mortalities in this same core area according to these same FWP Region 2 data. Compared to other monitoring units with significant portions of private land in FWP’s demographic monitoring area (DMA), grizzly bear mortalities that are caused from repeated conflicts with people in the Blackfoot watershed core project area remain at some of the lowest levels across the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (Costello et al. 2016).

Fig. 28.5 

Montana Livestock Loss Board data on confirmed and probable livestock depredations from grizzly bears for Blackfoot Challenge core project area, 1998–2020

The above results are a positive sign that in general, conflicts are relatively low in the core project area in the face of growing and expanding populations of large carnivores in the project area (Costello et al. 2016; Mace et al. 2012; Kendall et al. 2009). The reduction in human-bear conflicts and bear mortality that may have in part, resulted from these efforts had several important outcomes: (1) an increased level of trust and credibility generated among stakeholders as projects produced results, (2) a positive economic impact on livestock producers by minimizing livestock losses to grizzlies, and (3) an impression of overall improvement in community-level acceptance of grizzly bears in the watershed.

For period 2007–2020, livestock losses to wolves have been low while the wolf population increased exponentially and eventually leveled off (Fig. 28.6) (Coltrane et al. 2015, MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2021; MT Livestock Loss Board 2021). Wildlife Services provided reports to FWP regarding confirmed livestock losses to wolves and to the MT Livestock Loss Board. Annual confirmed livestock losses (calves and sheep) to wolves have been 3.3 livestock per year. Less than four wolves per year have been removed (3.6 wolves per year) due to these depredations for the same period (Fig. 28.6). The low levels of livestock losses to wolves and the proactive and preventative efforts help balance agricultural needs with those of wildlife. Additionally, the level of livestock losses in the core project area in the Blackfoot watershed is significantly lower that other areas of the state that experience chronic livestock depredations to wolves (DeCesare et al. 2018).

Fig. 28.6

Estimated minimum number of known wolves in the Blackfoot watershed (core project area); wolves removed for management purposes; and confirmed livestock losses to wolves in Blackfoot watershed, 2007–2020

There are ecological and management factors that should be acknowledged when interpreting the above results. These include abundant ungulate populations, small wolf pack sizes likely due to hunting and trapping seasons (2009, 2011–present), seasonally livestock-free areas for several wolf packs, and difficult hunter and trapper access due to private land patterns in the Blackfoot watershed. All of these factors likely contribute to low levels of livestock depredations and may help sustain a population of wolves in the watershed (Wilson et al. 2017).

5 Lessons Learned

The major lesson from this case study is that living with large carnivores requires bringing people together to build trust, generate a shared understanding of the problem using science, and to develop a participatory and equitable approach for changing practices and adopting tools that foster coexistence with carnivores. The result of this approach was a community-scaled response across public and private ownerships so that conflict reduction efforts were appropriately matched to the scale of bear home ranges and wolf pack territories. Additionally, there are four important pillars to build collaborative and partnership-based efforts. These are: (1) there must be some coordination of resources, (2) efforts should be informed by science, (3) stakeholder values must be incorporated, and (4) a decision-making process must be present in order to rationally discuss the issues, make decisions, and implement actions in a participatory manner with stakeholders.

The existing capacity and support of the BC was critical for coordinating stakeholder values, developing collective goals, and bringing the biological and technical skill sets of key wildlife managers and local knowledge of landowners and ranchers together to implement projects. Second, for both grizzly bears and wolves, existing research and new analysis was used when needed to bring the latest science and management expertise of key partners to address strategies for living with bears and wolves. Third, throughout all this work, keen attention was paid to respecting and incorporating all stakeholder values from those who lived and worked in the watershed to those who from outside the area but who also had keen interest in conservation of the watershed and its wildlife. And fourth, the overall process that defines the BC was critical for managing and integrating these different values using a non-advocacy, non-litigatory, and consensus-driven process through the inclusive forum of the BC Wildlife Committee. This inclusive and creative forum for decision making fostered direct participation of ranchers and landowners in the projects described in this case study.

The efforts described in this chapter are built on trust, credibility, and a reservoir of social capital from the Blackfoot Challenge that helped bring people together. This seemingly simple task for bringing people together was instrumental in generating an inclusive process that allowed stakeholders to work together to successfully respond to and live with grizzly bears and wolves in the American West.