Is it time to hunt the Louisiana black bear?

PHOTO: Paul Davidson with Louisiana black bear cubs

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Davidson is executive director of the Black Bear Conservation Coalition, an organization of private citizens that includes members from government agencies, universities, forest, agricultural, and energy companies. The BBCC has been widely credited with fostering the research, education and habitat protection that led to the remarkable recovery of the Louisiana Black Bear. Here, Davidson argues that the work is not complete.]

The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) was listed as “threatened” under the guidelines of the Endangered Species Act in January of 1992. In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made public their “Recovery Plan for the Louisiana Black Bear.” In that plan, the Recovery Criteria were listed as:
1) At least two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins;
2) Establishment of immigration and emigration corridors between the two subpopulations;
3) Protection of the habitat and interconnecting corridors that support each of the two viable subpopulations used as justification for delisting.
Also noted in the Executive Summary in the listing document was the statement: “Reduced quantity and quality of habitat meeting the bear’s needs and human-induced mortality are primary factors currently limiting the recovery of the bear.”

Issues related to delisting
It is questionable that the delisting criteria have been met. What is the definition of a “corridor”? What determines “protection of habitat and corridors”?
On page 17, Section 3.2, of the Recovery Plan: “Coordinate record keeping of all reported and investigated bear deaths.” Where is this information? Repeated requests for bear mortality information have been met with either, “that data is not available”, or “we do not need to make that information public.” How can the public make credible comments related to the delisting proposal if the mortality information is not made public? It can’t! If human-caused mortality was determined to be a threat in the original listing document, those data should factor into the delisting proposal.
An additional component of those records should include “investigated” bear deaths. How many bear poaching cases have been investigated, how many have led to criminal charges and how many successful prosecutions have been made. It appears from press releases from LDWF that as the bear population has increased, the number of bear poaching cases has diminished. Do we really believe that people are no longer killing bears?
According to the LDWF Draft Louisiana Black Bear Management Plan, approximately 300 bears have been killed as a result of anthropogenic conflicts (vehicular collisions, poaching, management actions) since the bear’s listing. At least 33 documented poaching incidents have occurred, but the true extent of such occurrences remains unknown. University of Tennessee graduate student Jesse Troxler, in 2013, estimated that 10 percent of the coastal subpopulation is being lost to vehicular collisions annually. These numbers are likely the “best guess,” since neither the USFWS or LDWF has kept up with bear mortality since the listing. Information from 2008 to the present is likely fairly accurate, but anything prior to that is not credible.
Since 2009, the LDWF has been relocating nuisance bears from St. Mary Parish to other sites. There are nearly 50 years of data that show that moving a nuisance bear out of its home range results in a diminished chance of survival. Most data show that relocated bears have less than a 50/50 chance of survival. A remarkable homing instinct causes bears to try to get back home, resulting in high road mortality or being killed by poachers or law enforcement. A recent article from the Colorado Fish and Game Commission showed that 90 percent of the bears relocated out of the Durango, Colo., area were dead within three weeks. This management action by LDWF is increasing mortality of the Louisiana black bear, especially in the coastal population.
The current delisting proposal, in my opinion, is purely political. In the USFWS Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Action Plan (2009) states that “delisting the Louisiana black bear is a priority of the Secretary of the Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries.” LDWF Secretary Robert Barham has stated publicly many times that his number one priority for his second term of office is to delist the bear and establish a hunting season before he leaves office in January 2016. Secretary Barham has personally told me that he has communicated with U.S. Sen. David Vitter to get his support and they have pressured the director of the USFWS to “fast track” the delisting of the Louisiana black bear. I have been told by service personnel that it is all political and by one refuge manager that they are under a lot of pressure to delist. This is not sufficient reason to delist the bear.
I find it disheartening that the Endangered Species Act, legislation that the conservation community has touted as so important for so long, can be corrupted by some local politician for his short-term political agenda.
For over two decades, bear restoration in the region was a very transparent, collaborative and inclusive process that proved to be remarkable effective. Over the past several years, coinciding with the current LDWF administration, all bear-related discussion has been behind closed doors, with the LDWF and USFWS determining policy and putting bear recovery and delisting on the “fast track.”
Comments on the proposed rule are due by July 20, 2015. Hard copies of comments should be sent to:

Public Comments Processing
Attn: Docket Number, FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters, ABHC-PPM
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803

Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the Docket Number for this proposed rule, FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014. To submit a comment, click on “Comment now!”