The Battle for our Louisiana Black Bear
Did you know the Louisiana black bear's habitat is no longer protected under federal law? ABK and partners are challenging the 2016 delisting of the Louisiana black bear and removal of its critical habitat designation from protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Why is ABK challenging the delisting? View our original comments submitted to the U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Service click (here)
January 29, 2023 - ABK received negative Ruling on our lawsuit against the delisting of the Louisiana Black bear.
The Hunt
Members of the Louisiana legislature introduced a bill to require a bear hunting season in Louisiana beginning in 2023. Senate Bill No.86 (Bear Hunting Season) The bill was withdrawn after facing strong opposition but that did not stop the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries moving forward to open a hunting season.
ABK and Partners Comments and Attachments to the Senate Bill No.86
Notice of Intent. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries issued a Notice of Intent December 2023 (link). Interested persons may submit written comments relative to the proposed Rule until February 5, 2024, to John Hanks, Office of Wildlife, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, P. O. Box 98000, Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 or via e-mail to jhanks@wlf.la.gov.
2024 Louisiana black bear hunt – BIG PICTURE POINTS
· LDWF’s proposed Louisiana black bear hunt is untimely, it is not supported by science, monitoring data, or population statistics.
· The Louisiana black bear remains a threatened subspecies and an authorized hunt would impede its chances of long-term survival.
· The latest data shows that the long-term survival of the subspecies is not certain.
· The habitat gains since delisting have been minimal and largely in the form of private landowner conservation easements.
· Bear mortality data reflects that illegal poaching contributes to the declining numbers in the UARB subpopulation. Before authorizing a hunt, LDWF should address the poaching issue throughout the state, and how authorizing a legal hunt of bears in Louisiana may affect public perception and rates of illegal kills.
· LDWF should first provide updated bear mortality data (annual numbers, causes, etc.), and consider the effect of authorized kills in the TRB while the other “recovered” subpopulation (UARB) continues to decline and the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin subpopulation suffers a high amount of vehicular mortality, and its likelihood of long-term survival remains unknown but precarious at best.
· The US Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Louisiana black bear (LBB) under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species in 1992, and it removed it from the list in 2016 based on “recovery”, finding that two subpopulations (the Tensas River Basin (TRB) subpopulation of LBB and the Upper Atchafalaya River Basin (UARB) subpopulation of LBB) were likely to persist for the next 100 years and had sufficient habitat connectivity and protection.
· We challenged the decision to delist based on recovery in federal court and that lawsuit remains pending. The importance of that case regarding the proposed hunt is that the “recovered” status of the Louisiana black bear remains the subject of litigation and because the status is in dispute, it is premature for the state agency to consider opening a hunt at least until that lawsuit is resolved.
· Further, the latest monitoring data reveals that the likelihood of long-term persistence for both “recovered” subpopulations has declined since the delisting. This survival metric has consistently declined since the delisting – at the UARB estimated female survival over the past five years is well below the threshold for long-term persistence, and similarly at the TRB estimated survival has declined since delisting and the five-year estimate hovers at or slightly below the threshold for long-term persistence. USFWS found that both subpopulations (the “metapopulation”) must meet the threshold for long-term persistence to find that the bear had recovered in 2016, but today the metapopulation no longer meets this requirement and thus does not show a high probability of survival for the next 100 years. Nevertheless, the state agencies now proposes to open a bear hunt in the TRB despite the subspecies’ uncertain future.
· The purported population abundance figures for the Louisiana black bear are misleading and suffer a wide margin of error. The abundance estimate is based on stale data, with significant variances in the data confidence intervals, and assumptions that may not accurately reflect the Louisiana black bear population. LDWF appears to unreasonably/inappropriately rely on these abundance estimates to calculate the number of tags allotted for the proposed hunt.
· LDWF must procure updated, reliable abundance and survival data to inform its management decisions, including but not limited to the appropriateness of opening a bear harvest season now and continuing annually for the foreseeable future.
· AT A MINIMUM, LDWF should not authorize a hunt in the UARB or LARB before it can determine whether the populations’ viability will not be compromised. At this time, it cannot prove that additional kills by authorized hunt would not impair these subpopulations. LDWF should address the isolated status and unknown viability of the LARB subpopulation and the declining survival estimates and core population growth rates in the UARB. The UARB is genetically distinct (Minnesota translocation influence), which may influence its chances of survival in Louisiana, and which, at a minimum, LDWF should acknowledge and further investigate along with other potential sources of decline in the subpopulation.
· AT A MINIMUM, LDWF should allow only hunting of adult male bears and exclude all females, cubs and yearlings given the precarious state of the LBB still and the importance of female survival for long-term persistence of the subspecies
· The Notice of Intent lacks information necessary for lawmakers and the public to ascertain whether the proposal is appropriate and supported by science.
o It envisions commencing a bear hunt in Bear Management Area 4 (corresponding to the Tensas River Basin subpopulation habitat) but does not appear to limit future hunts to this area/subpopulation despite UARB and the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin (LARB) subpopulations not meeting viability standards for long-term survival.
o It references no monitoring data or findings to support its tag limits, BMA selection, or future management objectives.
o It includes no mention of the management objectives for the Louisiana black bear, no reference to the current LBB Management Plan published in 2015, or LDWF’s stated intent to update the LBB Management Plan in the near future.
· The LBB Management Plan (2015) lists harvest as a potential management objective, only to be considered if supported by the latest science and data, and first emphasizes the importance of education and outreach and mitigating human-bear interactions in its management the subspecies.
o HOWEVER, the LDWF seems to have largely failed to meet its education and outreach objectives. It used to rely heavily on the BBCC, but since the BBCC disbanded, it does not appear that anyone has taken the lead on this as we are aware of minimal, if any, LDWF led LBB education and outreach, and several sources of the information on LDWF’s website regarding the LBB is out of date or disabled (e.g., links to monitoring reports).
· Before authorized to open a bear hunt in Louisiana, LDWF should be required to show that 1) the proposed harvest is supported by data, 2) that it has met its management responsibilities to pursue education, outreach, and mitigation of human-bear conflicts and produce deliverables on the outcomes of those efforts, 3), that it is financially capable of managing the subspecies; and 4) that management of the subspecies by harvest is both necessary and scientifically appropriate.
· LDWF should update the Louisiana black bear Management Plan (originally published in 2015 – prior to delisting!), and allow for public participation, comment and hearing on the proposed updated Plan BEFORE authorizing the first hunt of the subspecies in over forty years.
· The NOI divides the lottery into three groups: 1) for private landowners, 2) in wildlife management areas, and 3) the general lottery. Based on the language of the NOI, it is unclear how tags will be allotted to each group, but we ask that private landowners be afforded no more opportunities to participate than the general public (general lottery). Affording more opportunities to landowners than the non-landowning public to participate in the hunt amounts to privatization of a proposed game species. LDWF should clarify it’s proposed lottery system with much more detail regarding how tags will be allotted to each of the identified groups, and explain why private landowners should not be incorporated into the general lottery and given the same likelihood of draw as the general public.
· Data shows that hunting is not a solution for nuisance bears or human-bear conflicts and thus is not an excuse to allow hunting where other more supported, humane management practices are available (e.g., education, bear-safe trash bins, prohibiting feeder stands/baiting, road crossing corridors and signs, etc.)
· General fund taxpayer money supports the LDWF conservation efforts, including for the Louisiana black bear, and taxpayers are entitled to information regarding the efficacy of the LDWF in meeting its duties as the management agency for the LBB subspecies. All information relevant to the state agency’s management of this subspecies of concern should be made readily available to the public, including information relied on in support of proposing to open a bear hunt in Louisiana in 2024.
IN THE WEEDS INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF THE BEAR AND WHY THIS HUNT IS SO PROBLEMATIC –
· The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Wildlife and Fisheries Commission proposes to adopt a Louisiana Black Bear hunting season to commenced in December 2024 in the Tensas River Basin Bear Management Area (BMA 4).
· The published Notice of Intent (NOI) includes no discussion of the status of the Louisiana black bear (LBB), such as monitoring data and estimates of population abundance, long-term survival estimates, fecundity, or population growth rates.
· The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the Louisiana black bear (LBB) from the List of Threatened and Endangered Species on March 11, 2016, which also removed critical habitat protections for the subspecies.
o The Louisiana black bear is a genetically distinct subspecies of the American black bear and is unique to Louisiana with historic populations exceeding 80,000 bears and spanning across Louisiana and into the shared border areas with Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. By 1950, only 80-120 bears were estimated to remain in Louisiana.
o The subspecies was listed in 1992 after suffering severe habitat loss and degradation and population decline from hunting that occurred in the decades prior.
§ The individual plaintiffs in the delisting lawsuit had to sue for the USFWS to list the bear in 1992, and again in 2009 to force the USFWS to designate critical habitat for the subspecies.
o The USFWS delisted the bear based on recovery, finding that the Recovery Plan requirements—two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins, with protected connecting habitat – had been met.
§ The recovery was based on data finding that the Tensas River Basin (TRB) and Upper Atchafalaya River Basin (UARB) subpopulations were likely to persist long-term (for the next 100 years). The USFWS did not find that the other original LBB subpopulation in the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin (LARB) met this threshold for long-term persistence.
§ In 2009, the USFWS repatriated bears from the TRB and LARB into an area located between the TRB and UARB (referred to as the Three Rivers Complex (TRC) area or repatriated population) to serve as a “stepping-stone” between the two recovery populations. Together, the TRB, UARB, and TRC are considered the “metapopulation” that met recovery criteria upon which the delisting is based and the post-delisting monitoring plan is primarily focused. The LARB is not included, is not adequately monitored/studied, and is not otherwise addressed or discussed in terms of how/what is needed for that population to meet long-term survival. In essence, this population has been left to fend for itself despite being 1) genetically and physically isolated, 2) threatened by vehicular mortality (consistently seeing the greatest percent of vehicular mortality due to the presence of Highway 90 serving as the northern boundary and physical barrier to northern migration for bears in the LARB), 3) sensitivie to climate related impacts of sea-level rise, severe storms, and subsidence, 4) experiencing frequent human-bear interactions and euthanasia as a result, and perhaps most importantly, this population is likely the most genetically pure subpopulation of Louisiana black bear because it has been isolated for so long – but this genetic isolation also presents a threat to the long-term persistence of this forgotten subpopulation.
§ There are no protected travel corridors between any of the subpopulations – including between the TRB and UARB.
o The delisting decision and reliance on the UARB subpopulation for its recovery finding also disregards the data and acknowledgment that this population is greatly influenced by the translocation of Minnesota American black bears in the 1960s into the UARB area for sport hunting. The area had few LBBs present at the time of the Minnesota translocation event, and thus experts (Dr. Ron Nowak, plaintiff in the delisting challenge) suggest that this population is not true Louisiana black bear, and thus the delisting and recovery finding’s reliance on this population is unreasonable and scientifically indefensible. Rather, the only two original Louisiana black bear subpopulations include the TRB and LARB subpopulations, which have not been connected and do not support a recovery finding because the viability/survival of the LARB is unknown and threats to the long-term persistence of the LARB subpopulation remain.
· Plaintiffs Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Sierra Club and its Delta Chapter, the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association-West, Healthy Gulf, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Dr. Ronald Nowak, Dr. Michael Caire, and Harold Schoeffler legally challenged the USFWS’s 2016 decision to delist the Louisiana black bear. That lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
o The lawsuit challenges the decision to delist and the Service’s finding that the Louisiana black bear has “recovered.” If the Plaintiffs succeed, the Court may order the USFWS to relist the Louisiana black bear and restore full Endangered Species Act protections for the subspecies and its habitat.
o It is premature for the LDWF to initiate a bear hunt while this lawsuit is pending, and as discussed below, while the status of the metapopulation (TRB and UARB) reflects a downward trend in female survival and thus the likelihood of long-term persistence of the subspecies.
· The LDWF was required to conduct post-delisting monitoring of the Louisiana black bear after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) removed the LBB from the List of Threatened and Endangered Species on March 11, 2016. The final Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Louisiana black bear required 7 years of post-delisting population and habitat data collection, analysis, and the production and publication of 7 annual post-delisting monitoring reports and one Final Report evaluating the status of the bear. This data collection was intended to allow LDWF to monitor the status of the greater LBB population and afford the agency opportunities to make informed conservation and management decisions. But the LDWF is ill-equipped to make informed conservation and management decisions at this time without more recent, up-to-date monitoring data and analysis of the status of the Louisiana black bear, and if anything, the data available (now nearly 3 years old) does not support its decision to pursue a bear hunt at this time.
o 1) The agency failed to meet its own monitoring plan obligations: LDWF conducted only 5 years of post-delisting monitoring (from 2016 to 2021) and prepared only 6 Annual Monitoring Reports (including a reporting period that pre-dated the final delisting decision (April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016, 1st Annual Report)).
o 2) the information and monitoring data available is already stale: the reported population data (collected in 2020 and 2021) will be well over three years old at the time of the proposed hunt in December 2024. Given the declining survival estimates in recent years, reliance on old data to support a hunt is unreasonable and the final monitoring reports conceded the need for continued study, particularly with regard to the below-threshold apparent female survival figures and declining population growth in the UARB.
o 3) Data on the status of the Louisiana black bear is not made readily available to the public: the Louisiana black bear post-delisting monitoring annual reports are not available on LDWF’s website [if you click the links for either the “Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan” or the “Post-Delisting Monitoring Annual Reports” the link is disabled]. This has been brought to the agency’s attention several times and has not been rectified.
· The Louisiana Black Bear Management Plan has not been updated since it was originally published in 2015 (prior to the final delisting decision). LDWF confirmed that it intends to update this plan, but has not shared further information on this effort, whether this will occur prior to the planned hunt, and how allowing hunting of this subspecies will impact the Department’s management objectives for the subspecies and management plans for the foreseeable future. The LDWF should update the LBB Management Plan, allowing the public to comment on the draft plan prior to final publication, BEFORE opening a bear hunt.
o The original 2015 Management Plan provides that population sustainability is a priority for LDWF, that bear harvest may be considered for population management unless it would compromise LBB sustainability.
o It provides that bear harvests would be based on demographic monitoring data and would be adjusted annually to reflect the prior year’s subpopulation dynamics and account for the prior year’s mortality rates. We have not seen subpopulation dynamics data from 2023 or even 2022 to support the 2024 opening of a bear hunt.
o Harvests would also be adjusted according to the management objectives of each subpopulation or Bear Management Area. But the current management objectives of each individual subpopulation are unknown/unclear, especially in the LARB.
· Based on the latest (2020/2021) monitoring data (estimates of apparent female survival over 5 years) both the Tensas River Basin and Upper Atchafalaya River Basin subpopulations of LBB (i.e., the metapopulation upon which the USFWS’s “recovery” finding and decision to delist the subspecies were made) no longer show a high probability of long-term persistence because the subpopulations’ apparent female survival rates no longer exceed the 0.91 threshold for long-term survival (see changes to methodology articulated in 1st Annual Monitoring Report and identification of >0.91 apparent female survival threshold).
o LDWF found that average apparent female survival was the most important parameter for predicting extinction for the requisite monitoring durations (5- and 10-year monitoring terms) and both subpopulations (TRB and UARB).
o An average apparent female survival value of 0.91 or greater resulted in high probabilities of persistence (<95%). Thus the primary post-delisting monitoring goal became to determine whether the average apparent female survival threshold of 0.91 or greater (and thus the long-term probability of persistence of the respective LBB subpopulations) had been met. See 1st Annual Monitoring Report.
o However, the annual apparent survival rates for both the TRB and UARB subpopulations has been trending down for years. The 5th Annual Monitoring Report (2019-2020) states: “The adult female survival rate estimated from the CMR data was essentially at or slightly below the 5-year threshold of 0.90 at both TRB and UARB, depending on the model.” Appendix I at A-4. Further, the 6th and Final Annual Monitoring Report again reflects this downward trend in the apparent 5-year survival rate estimate for adult females in the TRB (0.905) and UARB (0.853), calling into question the long-term persistence of the metapopulation subpopulations, and thus the entire LBB subspecies. It concedes that population data “suggests a downward trend in recent years” and identifies that a number of radio-collared bears in the UARB have been illegally killed, perhaps attributable in part to much habitat in the UARB being privately owned and deer hunting being a common recreational activity there. Perhaps the allowance of baiting/feeder stands that attract bears and upset hunters/landowners contributes to this trend. Has LDWF taken steps to investigate and/or respond to this? If so, what?
o Of particular concern is the very real decline in the primary population at the UARB which experts suggest will require “further monitoring [to] determine the source of the decline and whether it will persist.” 2023 Report at 2, 11 (“the relatively low survival rate and the decreasing population growth projections for UARB were cause for concern.”)
o The downward trend in apparent survival at both the TRB and UARB goes unacknowledged by LDWF’s notice of intent to establish a hunt despite these concerning trends.
· A 2023 Report prepared for the LDWF estimates survival and abundance of Louisiana black bears using the same data (nothing post-dating 2021) and was intended to provide guidance to the agency on monitoring protocols at a reduced level of funding and manpower (i.e, for less money and time than was required for the post-delisting monitoring) and on the potential harvest.
o The report estimates a total bear population of 1,212.3 bears in Louisiana, including adult males and cubs.
o The population estimate assumes similar population vital rates in Louisiana to other non-harvested black bear populations in the Southeast and bases its figures for each subpopulation on data with high variances (particularly for secondary population estimates) and with regard to the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin (LARB) subpopulation, on population data from 2013 as no more recent CMR abundance data for that subpopulation has been collected. In other words, the total abundance estimate for LBBs in Louisiana is a rough gu-estimate.
o The author even disclaims that “estimating abundance [population] remains problematic, which is reflected in the relatively wide CIs [confidence intervals] for several of the study areas” and while “[h]arvesting is possible[,] managers might consider conservative harvest targets given the uncertainty of the abundance estimates and the uncertain but potentially negative effects of flooding and food supply on bear vulnerability to hunting.” Report at 13.
§ “Basing harvest targets on the lower CI, at least at the outset, would be a conservative management approach.” Report at 13.
§ “Continued monitoring would be necessary to evaluate the impacts of hunting on core and secondary bear population demographics, but reduced monitoring strategies will come with higher variances (wider CIs) and the secondary areas will have higher uncertainty than the primary areas.” Report at 13
· The problems here are that the LDWF now proposes a hunt 1) based off these population figures, not in the lower confidence interval as suggested, but on the admittedly “problematic” abundance estimate, 2) while survival rates determinate of long-term persistence of the subspecies trend below threshold to avoid extinction in 100 years; and 3) without (to our knowledge) public commitment to continued study/evaluation/monitoring to ensure adequate protection of the subspecies given the precarious state it is already in.
· Finally, habitat remains an issue for the LBB, particularly if a more abundant population is expected. Habitat gains since delisting are not sufficient to support expanding LBB populations: regarding LBB habitat conservation, the LDWF boasts an increase in protected lands supporting breeding populations since the delisting, but the greatest change in habitat includes the addition of private land covered by easements (for which enforcement of conservation requirements is questionable), not public lands managed by regulatory agencies –
o From 2016 to 2021, LDWF reports a net increase of only 26,576 acres of permanently protected land in LBB habitat restoration planning area (HRPA).
o 99% of all of the reported changes in acres of protected lands from 2016 to 2021 occurred in the TRB, and of the changes in acres in the TRB, 96% of the changes were the addition of lands in the Wetland Reserve Program (i.e., an incentive-based government program with private landowners for conservation easements).
o Overall, the UARB lost 110.75 acres between 2016 and 2021, and the LARB gained a mere 152.64 acres in the same time.
· If the state wants to open a hunt, the vitality rates and abundance estimates of the subspecies should support it. Presently, they do not. But managers intent on authorizing a hunt can work to protect more, new habitat acres, connect subpopulations to allow more movement, and thus allow for the expansion of the bear population to figures that would support a sustainable hunt in the future. But to propose a hunt now given the data we do have does not reflect wise management and decision-making in the interest of the long-term persistence of the subspecies in Louisiana.
Establishing a bear hunt before this unique subspecies has reached true recovery may well be the beginning of the end for the Louisiana black bear.
Let’s hope that we can learn from the experience of our neighbors in Florida where, despite vocal opposition, the state authorized a bear hunt in 2015. At that time, there were roughly 4,000 black bears in Florida, and with interest from 3,776 hunters, over 300 bears were killed (including nursing mothers and juveniles) in just two days, requiring the state to call off the hunt earlier than planned. Afterwards, the public was overwhelmingly opposed to a future bear hunt in Florida and the state has not since reopened bear hunts.
In Louisiana, we have nowhere near the bear population Florida did when it opened a hunt. Rather, the population of Louisiana black bears plummeted from over 80,000 to less than 500 Louisiana black bears estimated in 2016. In that same year, the bear was removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as a result of decades of degraded habitat, illegal and incidental kills and hunting (which was legal in the state until 1988). Basinkeeper and partners have sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for prematurely delisting the Louisiana black bear without proving recovery of the subspecies and that case remains pending. The population estimates do not show healthy recovery. Two populations supporting true Louisiana black bears–one in the Tensas River Basin with 296 estimated bears and one in the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin with 164 estimated bears–are disconnected, and the population figures are not certain. With such few numbers and great distance separating these two populations, every bear is important to the survival of the subspecies.
Not only should the bear not be hunted until it has reached true recovery–which certainly cannot be claimed with less than 500 Louisiana black bears remaining in two isolated populations–but a hunt should not be considered at least until the court decides whether the bear should remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Please consider becoming a member or donating today to help fund this important work to protect the Louisiana black bear.
LEGAL ACTIONS
FIRST LEGAL ACTION 2018
In June 2018, ABK, Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association, Sierra Club and its Delta Chapter, with three individual plaintiffs, filed suit in district court in Washington D.C., challenging the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2016 decision to delist the Louisiana black bear from the U.S. List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. ABK et al. challenges the Service’s conclusion that the species is “recovered” on the basis of sound science, but rather contends that threats remain and the Service’s decision was premature and in violation of federal law. (To read the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, click here).
While the parties are working to ensure that the administrative record is complete and adequately presented to the court, Safari Club International – an international organization protecting the right to hunt – is seeking to intervene in the case in support of the government and its decision to delist the black bear.
On January 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Safari Club’s intervention, arguing that this is not a case about hunting, but rather if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complied with federal law, used the best available science to make a delisting determination, and whether the “recovery” plan relied on by the Service actually puts the bear in greater jeopardy. The right to hunt is not at issue in this case, in fact, most of our Plaintiffs are avid outdoors enthusiasts and hunters. However, there is currently no legal season for hunting black bears, and there has not been for many decades.
Plaintiffs express concern over the probability that allowing Safari Club to join the case will bring in issues that are not germane to the case, adding unnecessary confusion to an already complex case. Plaintiffs argue that the intervention misses the mark – which this case is not a question of whether the bear should or should not be hunted, but whether the federal government followed the law in determining that the Louisiana black bear no longer requires federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. The decision of whether, when, or how to initiate a hunting season for black bears in Louisiana is entirely up to the state wildlife agency, who is not even a party to the case. This issue is not part of Plaintiffs’ claims and as such, should not be the basis for which Safari Club is granted intervention.
To learn more, check out Plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum (here), and Safari Club’s Motion to Intervene (here).
To view our original comments submitted to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Service click (here)
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ AND SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (click here)
Second Legal Action October 2020
Lawsuit Seeks Protections for Louisiana Black Bears
Fewer than 500 “Teddy Bears” May Exist as Recovery Efforts Falter
Washington, DC — In an effort to restore protections to the beleaguered Louisiana black bear, a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The suit seeks to return the bear to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, from which it was removed in March 2016.
The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) is one of 16 subspecies of the American black bear. It is often referred to as “Teddy’s Bear,” because President Theodore Roosevelt once famously refused to shoot one that had been tied to a tree, saying it would not be sporting.
The lawsuit disputes the FWS claim of “recovery” for the Louisiana black bear. The agency admits that as few as 500 of the bears may survive today. But even that number includes bears that do not belong to the native subspecies but to an alien population descended from bears brought down from Minnesota in the 1960s for sport hunting purposes or are hybrids between the native and alien groups. The suit attacks the FWS attempts to pass off these other animals as true Louisiana black bears as its rationale for contending that recovery goals had been met for this unique subspecies.
Today, the Louisiana black bear has lost 99% of its historic population and more than 97% of its historic range. At least 80,000 Louisiana black bears once inhabited an area of at least 120,000 square miles, covering all of Louisiana, much of Mississippi, eastern Texas, and southern Arkansas. Today, the remaining animals reside on just 2,800 square miles and are split mainly into three widely separated populations, with the native subspecies occurring in the Tensas River Basin and Lower Atchafalaya River Basin, and the alien group in the Upper Atchafalaya River Basin; some also live in western Mississippi.
Bringing the lawsuit are Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association West, Sierra Club and its Delta Chapter, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Healthy Gulf, and individual plaintiffs Ronald M. Nowak, Harold Schoeffler, and Dr. Michael J. Caire. A previous suit was dismissed earlier this year on technical grounds. The groups and individuals filing suit today have advocated for the bear for decades; Harold Schoeffler petitioned for the bear’s listing over 30 years ago in 1987
Besides hybridization, the Louisiana black bear faces loss of remaining habitat and isolation of the coastal population attributable to further development along Highway 90 and future eastward extension of Interstate 49 down that same route. In addition, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is exploring the possibility of resuming bear hunts. Notably, the Safari Club intervened in the prior suit to support the delisting and will likely do so again to preserve the option of opening a hunting season for the bear, a possibility which would be precluded by relisting the bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The plaintiffs filing suit today include avid hunters and fishermen who live and recreate in bear habitat, and who understand that with present low population numbers, each individual bear remains critical to the survival of the subspecies. These groups and individuals support ethical hunting of wildlife, but recognize that it is not presently possible to ethically hunt the Louisiana black bear with such low numbers and substantial threats remaining. Only through proper management and protection under the ESA will the bear ever reach sufficient numbers to support a future hunt.
See FWS admission that there may be as few as 500 Louisiana black bears left
April 20, 2021
LOUISIANA GROUPS RAISE CONCERN OVER SAFARI CLUB’S INCLUSION IN LAWSUIT TO PROTECT THE BLACK BEAR
Last fall, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association West, Healthy Gulf, Sierra Club and its Delta Chapter, with three individual plaintiffs, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2016 decision to remove the Louisiana black bear from the U.S. List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. The Plaintiffs challenge the Service’s delisting decision and finding that the bear has recovered, despite continued threats such as habitat loss and unnatural hybridization with non-native bears.
Meanwhile, Safari Club International – an international organization advocating for the right to hunt – seeks to intervene in the case to support the Service’s decision to delist the Louisiana black bear. Plaintiffs’ have opposed Safari Club’s intervention, raising concerns that potential future hunts are not at issue in this case addressing whether the agency’s delisting decision is supported by law and the best scientific data available. Plaintiffs include individuals and organization members that are themselves avid hunters. Jody Meche, president of LCPA-West, a plaintiff organization in the case, stated: “Most of our members have been hunting and fishing in the Atchafalaya Basin since they were young; it’s part of our culture and our connection to the Basin.”
There has not been a legal hunt of black bears in Louisiana for many decades, and even since the 2016 delisting, a hunting season has not yet been opened for bears in Louisiana. Plaintiff Dr. Ron Nowak said: “The bear was listed in 1992, partly due to greatly reduced numbers from overhunting. Listing helped it come back some, but numbers are nowhere near those in states that allow hunting of black bears. Regardless, this case is not about hunting but about an agency ignoring both law and science to deceive the public for political proclivity."
Plaintiff Dr. Michael Caire said: “Louisiana’s sportsmen (not a gender specific word) have been at the forefront of protecting and enhancing our State’s and Nation’s wildlife resources even prior to Theodore Roosevelt becoming President. The issue is Federal mismanagement (intentional or otherwise) that threatens the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.”
Dean Wilson, executive director for Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, a plaintiff organization, said: “I find it morally repugnant that groups like Safari Club put pressure on our government to hunt species with so few individuals left. Safari Club’s interests are not compatible with the reality that still faces the bear in Louisiana today, where as few as 500 individuals may remain and face threats to their survival. I believe in ethical and sustainable hunting, and I hope that this case will result in adequate protection and management of the bear to allow its population numbers to grow to support possible hunting in the future. But we’re not there yet.”
Motion to Intervene of Safari Club International
Memorandum in support of Safari Clun International’s Motion to Intervene
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Safari Club International’s Motion to Intervene
July 19, 2021
Lawsuit Seeks Protections for Louisiana Black Bears
In an ongoing legal drive to restore Endangered Species Act protections to the iconic but star-crossed Louisiana black bear, a coalition of local and national conservationists today filed motion for summary judgement in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
In March 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had removed the bear, known popularly as the "Teddy Bear" and scientifically as subspecies luteolus, from its List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Amidst an outpouring of self-congratulations and publicity, joined in at the highest levels of state and national government, a great conservation victory was proclaimed. Not mentioned was that a reluctant FWS had been pressured through a decade-long battle and finally a lawsuit before listing the bear in 1992. The very same parties who led that earlier struggle are plaintiffs in the new suit.
Listing saved the bear. With protection of luteolus and its habitat, coupled with the efforts of dedicated federal and state biologists (and some continued outside prodding) bear numbers rebounded from a low of around 100 and breeding range increased. Then, FWS began a complex program that supposedly would lead to recovery of the subspecies but that is more likely to spell its doom.
FWS subsequently claimed to have met its key criteria for recovery: two "viable" populations of luteolus connected by suitable habitat allowing the two to merge and interbreed. One such population was in the Tensas River Basin (TRB) of northeastern Louisiana, the other in the Upper Atchafalaya River Basin (UARB) in the central part of the state. "Connection" had resulted from a 2001–2009 program to artificially translocate some TRB bears to an area between the two populations, known as the Three Rivers Complex (TRC). UARB bears moved into the TRC and interbreeding began. The plan had worked!
There was only one problem. The UARB bears were not true Louisiana luteolus. They were descended from bears of another subspecies, caught at Minnesota garbage dumps in the 1960s and brought to the UARB by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries for sport hunting. When FWS proposed delisting in May 2015, it tried to pass off the UARB bears as just another population of luteolus.
Comments on the proposal noted that the very authorities relied upon by FWS for genetic confirmation of viability and interbreeding had also shown that the UARB had no surviving bear population prior to the 1960s and that the bears there now were closely related to those in Minnesota. FWS then admitted as much, but suggested that the mere possibility that a few native bears had wandered into the UARB somehow converted the whole population there to luteolus. FWS has held to that absurdity, though further DNA studies have confirmed the Minnesota origin of the UARB population.
FWS has never attempted to calculate an estimate of original range and numbers. One may ask how there can be claim of recovery without any idea of what there was originally. Nonetheless, data right from documentation compiled by FWS shows former range was at least 118,000 square miles and numbers at least 80,000. That compares to about 1,800 square miles today, with approximately 296 bears in the TRB and 164 in another historic population in the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin (LARB). FWS has claimed that one more population of Louisiana black bear has been re-established in western Mississippi, but the recent DNA research shows most bears there migrated from a non-luteolus group in Arkansas. Disregarding the Mississippi, the alien UARB, and the hybridized TRC groups, the only existing true Louisiana black bear populations are those of the TRB and LARB.
Incredibly, FWS seems prepared to write off the LARB population and does not even consider it "significant." Yet it is larger than the alien UARB group and contains about a third of all true luteolus. FWS acknowledges it faces many "threats," yet argues it is not "threatened." It has been especially hard hit by the delisting, as formerly restricted commercial and agricultural activity in its habitat again is increasing. Ancient cypress and tupelo trees, ideal for bear dens, are being cut down, and danger is posed by further development and traffic along Highway 90 and future eastward extension of Interstate 49 on that same route. Loss of habitat by the LARB population and the imminent loss of genetic integrity by the TRB population are a devastating combination for the last Louisiana black bears.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association West, Sierra Club and its Delta Chapter, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Healthy Gulf, and individuals Dr. Michael J. Caire, Ronald M. Nowak, and Harold Schoeffler, the last of whom petitioned for the bear’s listing in 1987. The plaintiffs include avid hunters and fishermen who live and recreate in bear habitat, but who understand that it is not presently possible to ethically hunt the Louisiana black bear with such low numbers and substantial threats remaining.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Supporting Attachments No. 51-1
Supporting Attachments No. 51-2
Supporting Attachments No. 51-3
Supporting Attachments No. 51-4
Supporting Attachments No. 51-5
Supporting Attachments No. 51-6
