She notes that her team of 250 scientists and researchers set up hair-snag stations at thousands of locations throughout the grizzly habitat, some as far as 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the nearest road. These wire setups do not harm the bears in any way, Servheen says: "It's no more than running a comb through your hair."
The team collected 34,000 samples of bear hair over a 14-week period in 2004, which it sent over the border to the Wildlife Genetics International laboratory in Nelson, British Columbia. By extracting and analyzing DNA in the strands, researchers were able to pinpoint the species (grizzly or black bear), gender, and individual identity of host bears. It took two years to analyze the large swath of samples and another to compile the data and conduct statistical analyses to estimate the size, distribution and genetic structure of the population as well as summarize the findings, which Kendall says she hopes to publish in a science journal by summer. (She refuses to reveal the results prior to publication.)
But numbers are only part of the story. Scientists say they also have to figure out how the population is changing to determine how to protect it. Toward that end, the Montana state government four years ago launched a $250,000 per annum effort to monitor grizzly population trends (separate from, but complementary to Kendall's study on population size), according to Mace, who is in charge of that project.
"There are no answers yet," he says, noting that it is too early to tell whether the population is increasing, decreasing or if it remains unchanged since 2004. But researchers are optimistic they will be able to fashion effective preservation measures once they have a better idea of [to vary] the population size—thanks to Kendall's study—and a solid understanding of trends.
Still, for many Americans who have never seen and probably never will see a grizzly bear, the question remains: Why should one bear population merit millions in taxpayer money?
The reason, grizzly expert Servheen says: the bears are a threatened species. He estimates that only about 1,500 still reside in the 48 contiguous states, compared with some 50,000 before the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century (a 97 percent population decline). The once far-reaching grizzly habitat, which stretched from the Mississippi River to California and ranged north to south from Alaska to Mexico, is today restricted to four western states: Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. In these states, only two populations—those living in and around Yellowstone National Park and in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—number more than 50 bears and offer hope for long-term viability, Servheen says.
So is forking over huge chunks of change to protect grizzly bears "unbelievable"—or a joke—as McCain charges?
No way, scientists and environmentalists say. Protecting wildlife is expensive, but grizzlies are priceless, says Louisa Willcox, director of the Wild Bears Project for the National Resources Defense Council. "Grizzly bears are a symbol of our frontier past—of untamed wilderness," she says. "Lewis and Clark saw them eating buffalo carcasses on the American plains."
Not only are grizzlies "treasures of United States history," Servheen says, but they help us understand how effective our conservation efforts are. Despite their ferocious reputation, he notes, grizzlies are exquisitely sensitive to human activity and can only live on the wildest tracts of land. "They are an indicator of the health of ecosystems," he says, and they emblematize "the preservation of wilderness, which is becoming rarer every day."
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentI did a search on "Bears and DNA" after hearing John McCain's belittling reference to Congress' approval of 3 million for a related study. I knew there must have been a "rest of the story" somewhere, to vindicate the actions of Congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy search brought me to this site, which I read with interest and learned a lot of background. However, many people may not be convinced of the wisdom of Congress without some additional information - like how important grizzly bears are to the Big Picture, the "circle of life" or what would be the result of the loss of grizzly bears to the food chain, to nature and, ultimately, to Man. I'm on the side of Congress (who voted funds in the 2002 Congress, by the way). May we look for such an article here?
I did a search on "Bears and DNA" after hearing John McCain's belittling reference to Congress' approval of 3 million for a related study. I knew there must have been a "rest of the story" somewhere, to vindicate the actions of Congress. My search brought me to this site, which I read with interest and learned a lot of background. However, many people may not be convinced of the wisdom of Congress without some additional information - like how important grizzly bears are to the Big Picture, the "circle of life" or what would be the result of the loss of grizzly bears to the food chain, to nature and, ultimately, to Man. I'm on the side of Congress (who voted funds in the 2002 Congress, by the way). May we look for such an article here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's OK to spend trillions in Iraq, but any money for science should be questioned, according to McCain, who doesn't understand wildlife biology. DNA studies on populations of animals that are under stress (bears in Montana) are important. One must know the genetic relatedness between the different populations of a species (to prevent inbreeding), for management decisions. This is money for basic science. The lack of understanding of basic science by the politicians of both parties is shameful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't it be so sad if, during the course of studying the Grizzly genome, we found a gene that can convey cancer resistance or stimulate insulin production in children born with juvenile diabetes, only to find out we already killed all the Grizzlies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConservation and basic science research is vital to all aspects of medicine and technology, not to mention the general quality of everyday life. Case in point, the drug Taxol, one of the first and most effective drugs ever used in the treatment of Cancer, is derived from a rare tree - the Pacific Yew. Without basic science research, we would have never known it ever existed.
Spending money on scientific research in order to protect a threatened species - according to McCain, is a joke. I'm sure McCain understands everything there is to know about wildlife biology and genetic research, like for example how genetic studies on endangered species are cheap compared to the amount of vital information they can provide: estimates of population size and distribution, percentage of inbreeding, diet, stress - knowledge that is essential to saving this priceless species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBear DNA and a Woodstock museum sound interesting. Both bears and Woodstock can generate tourism dollars. Is that so wrong? I once knew someone whose research got made fun of for political gain. He was studying natural insecticides. It was very useful research. I hate it when politicians do not understand science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust read the bibble. It will tell you all you need to know about wildlife.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow why are you guys attacking the Bible and Christianity? No where in any of McCain's remarks doesw he cite this as being a religious issue. It is a fiscal issue. There are better and much more established methods of protecting endangered species that dont cost anywhere near as much as the DNA study. If scientists want to do pure research rather than applied science they need to get the money from a foundation or donations rather than the strapped federal government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI TOTALLY AGREE OF THE NEED AND PRAY FOR HOPE TO HAVE THE US PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS APPROVING FUNDS TO HELP THE BEAUTIFUL, YET CAN BE DEADLY, GRIZZLY BEARS FROM EXTINCTION. AND IF THE DNA WOULD HELP THAT AND NOT BE A WASTE OF MONEY THEN SO BE IT, HUH? ALSO IF IT DOESN'T CREATE UNNECCESSARY PAIN AND/OR SUFFERING FOR THE BEARS ALSO. BUT BETTER TREATMENT OF THEM. WELL, LESS SUFFERING FOR THEM SINCE THEY DO HAVE INNOCENCE AS ANIMALS, RIGHT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBUT FIRST OF ALL, WE MUST PRAY AND VOTE MSCAIN INTO THE WHITE HOUSE SINCE HE IS BY FAR THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ETC. IN JESUS CHRIST NAME I PRAY. AMEN.
John McCain gets even tougher with Montana bears. Look again
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kh0tQ-TyZ7M
John McCain gets even tougher with Montana bears. Look again
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kh0tQ-TyZ7M
Unbeleivable!!! we are in 2008 and some people still think that God has everything to do with the fact that there is life on earth??? Some humans have to wake up and stop praying and start to take their responsability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have all the evidence pointing to human action is responsible for what is happening to our environment. I'm not against religion when it comes to individual beleifs. But collectively we have to act or else it is not the the survival of the planet that is at stake but the survival of humans. Our planet have seen far worst situation but we can only survive some extreme conditions.