WEST GLACIER, Mont. — A coalition of wildlife groups are threatening to sue BNSF Railway over the death of eight federally protected grizzly bears in the mountains of northwest Montana in 2019, the most killed in a single year.
The groups allege that the railroad is not doing enough to protect the animals from being hit and killed by trains. Because the bears are protected under the Endangered Species Act, the railroad is legally required to come up with a plan to reduce the number of fatalities. BNSF officials say they are working on a plan, but wildlife advocates say they are not working on it fast enough.
“While [BNSF] has twiddled its thumbs for 15 years rather than taking essential measures to protect grizzly bears, trains have killed dozens of grizzlies, including at least four cubs,” says Sarah McMillan, conservation director at WildEarth Guardians. “This neglect that has such lethal impact on protected bears is simply unacceptable.”
According to the Western Environmental Law Center, between 1980 and 2018, trains have killed or contributed to the death of 52 grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. It is one of the largest grizzly bear habitats in the continental United States, following the Continental Divide from Missoula, Mont., north to the Canadian border. Many of those fatalities occur along BNSF’s main line along the southern edge of Glacier National Park. Between 1980 and 2002, trains struck and killed 29 grizzly bears along 67 miles of track between West Glacier and Browning.
More than 1,000 grizzly bears live in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem.
This year has been a particularly bad one for grizzly bears along the railway. Earlier this month, a train struck a cow near East Glacier Park, which attracted five bears to the right-of-way. Two of those bears were killed by trains and three bears were struck by cars on nearby U.S. Highway 2. Last week, two cubs were struck and killed by trains west of Whitefish.
Wildlife advocates say the bears are attracted to the right-of-way because of spilled grain, vegetation, and the scent of other animals that have been killed by trains. Critics say actions the railroad could take to help prevent deaths include removing carcasses, slowing down trains, and running fewer trains at night when the bears tend to feed and travel.
“The deaths of these grizzly bears and cubs was entirely preventable and there is no excuse for BNSF’s continued failure to safeguard the railroad from these lethal collisions,” says Josh Osher, Montana director for Western Watersheds Project. “Whether it’s a lack of concern, laziness, or just plain greed, it’s time for BNSF to be held accountable and to take immediate steps to stop further killings.”
The Western Environmental Law Center filed a notice of intent to sue on Oct. 19. The notice states that if the railroad does not resolve the problem within 60 days it will file a lawsuit in federal court.
In a statement to the Missoulian, BNSF spokeswoman Maia LaSalle says the railroad is working on a conservation plan to reduce grizzly bear fatalities and that it will soon be released to the public.
“For more than 20 years, BNSF has worked to reduce the number of grizzly bears struck by trains on the BNSF operated right-of-way by instituting mandatory reporting of grizzly strikes by train crews and protocols for removing grain, carrion, vegetation and other attractant from the track structure,” LaSalle tells the newspaper. “BNSF continues to work, along with its partners… to reduce the number of bear strikes.”
BNSF is not the only railroad to struggle with bear fatalities in recent years. Further north in British Columbia and Alberta, Canadian Pacific has teamed up with Parks Canada to try and reduce the number of bear fatalities in Yoho and Banff National Parks. CP even teamed with University of Alberta researchers to install devices on the tracks to warn the animals of an oncoming train [see “Smartening the average bear,” Trains News Wire, Sept. 29, 2017].
Obviously, this group doesn’t have as a member a receiver of rail cars that is dependent on timely delivery. The real world doesn’t work the way they want it to.
“Bear bells” jingling on the front of the lead locomotive should do it!
Kipp, I second that proposal.
I believe they are talking about Grizzlies and not the common brown bear. The Grizzlies can not be stopped with any fence as they can just go over it in a heartbeat. You would need a snow shed structure to cover the track and they would just go over it or tear it open to get inside. First thing is the railroad needs to dispose of anything dead on the tracks immediately and have MofW ready to do that. Trolley cars used to have pipe held net structure to catch people who did not get off the track in time. Attach something like that to front of trains in the Grizzlies zone, including an air bag to keep them alive.
I think the plan should include staking out members of the WildEarth Guardians and Western Environmental Law Center at intervals along the right of way to distract the bears from the tracks.
I’m curious as I live in an area which has plenty of black bears but no Grizzlies. I’m wondering what is the beneficial effect of having Grizzlies in a wild environment and also in an environment which has commercial ranching like Montana. Anyone know?
For example, the main reasons for wanting to have black bears around here is they help keep the deer population under control and they bring in revenue to the state and its rural areas due to bear hunting season. They very rarely cause livestock and property damage (other than to your garbage cans or when your car hits one.)
these wildlife people are total nut jobs
What bothers me is that people think that railroads don’t care about this. There is probably some damage to the locomotive, which they have to pay for themselves. The schedule is also disrupted which can reflect back to every train behind them. If there is significant delay, they may have to pickup the crew and deadhead out the replacement train crew. It is a big railroad and that is something that people just don’t seem to get. There are not employees every mile or two in Montana, like there may be in urban areas.
The story did not list any solution they felt acceptable, only for the BNSF to figure it out.. Seems to me any solution that keeps wildlife completely off the railroad would disrupt migration. Glad it is not my problem to figure out.
Hang some air bags on the front of locomotives running in the Grizzlies zone.
These people need to relax just a little bit. BNSF said they are working on a plan but for a railroad surrounded by an area where grizzlies can be located it’s hard. Speed? Fencing? Carefulness? These are all factors into how the bears can be protected, but to sue the railroad over the uncontrollable death of the bears? It seems a little stupid. I understand they are federally protected but still.
As for what BNSF can do, most likely they will try to ascertain if they have migratory patterns and build wildlife bridges over their ROW in certain locales with half mile fences on each side.
But the coalition seems to forget that north american brown bears (grizzlies) are territorial. If more males exist, the farther out they spread. The farther out they spread, the more likely they will encounter civilization. So by keeping them endangered for too long only exacerbates the problem. Essentially civilization is serving as a population control.
One idea is to take a stream that goes under the ROW today and build a stepstream bridge over the ROW. This still allows fish to migrate and makes the overpass appealing to the bears. Plant various type of seasonal berries at each end to entice them through. Put in a 1 mile fence in each direction so they can’t short cut.
Naturally these things cost money. I think Los Angeles just spend 10’s of millions to put in a nature overpass recently over their busiest freeway. Maybe BNSF can build snowsheds and disguise them as a bear crossing.
Perhaps the Wildlife people can produce a “No Trespassing” sign in a language grizzlies can read.
Going to a previous post, what are the State of Montana and the US NPS (Glacier NP) doing about motor vehicle/grizzly collisions on the parallel highway?
So the Endangered Species act penalizes the killing of an animal when the party is not remotely at fault? What kind of dictatorship do we live in? Suppose (hypothetically) deer were on the list (of course they aren’t but follow my logic). I almost hit one last night because they’re dumb and they dart in front of cars. Would I be penalized?
It’s a scam anyway. No one really knows the population of these species. They don’t return census forms. Heck, a lot of human people don’t either.
Like any other “environmental” law, such as Historic Preservation, Endangered Species is mis-used by special interest groups to control what other people can or cannot do. Remember the Spotted Owl in Oregon?????
There is some issues behind the scenes that are driving this.
In 2017 The USFWS removed the bears from the endangered list for Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
The wildlife coalitions all sued the US government saying they had no basis to remove the species from the list.
The lawsuit dragged through the courts for 2 years until August of this year the judge gave his final judgement and the USFWS placed the bears back on the endangered list.
Armed with this judges ruling, now the coalition is going after the railroads for not complying with this recent return to the list.
So technically the coalition claim that BNSF has been sitting on their hands for 15 years, is a bit of a distortion as the bears were unprotected for 2 years. BNSF didn’t have to do anything if they so chose until the government completed its legal course.
Also, since the act was passed in 2004, the State of Montana has had an active program to measure bear populations with sightings and the use of radio collars, specifically on females.
So far based on their research, the bear mortality rate has never exceeded 10% of the total population. In the last report of 2018, (when they weren’t endangered) the mortality rate was 8%.
So while the coalitions only focus is on the number & type of deaths, (which BNSF is required to report ALL bear impacts), the studies show that it never exceeds the mandated 10% threshold.
Right now they estimate that the total population of bears in the area equals approximately 800. The mortality rate has varied between 38 and 52 annually according to records.
The coalition doesn’t believe that 800 is an acceptable population for an endangered species and that *any* death via train strike is unacceptable. But according to the actual numbers collected by the state, the population isn’t declining.
As long as there are females, and they bear more than one litter in their lifetime, the population will remain healthy and sustainable.
The thing about bears is when a car is hit by a bear, to bad for the car. When a train gets hit by a bear too bad for the bear.
Can anybody bear to think about it.
Andrew Seldon,
Try this on for size…a coalition(single entity) comprised of wildlife groups(multiple entities) are threatening to sue the BNSF railway over Grizzly bear deaths, that’s correct and not much different from what was written, you don’t need to specify it’s a single entity comprised of multiple groups. That’s what a coalition is by definition.
Also, a cow aka bovine was killed by a train which attracted 5 Grizzly bears to the carcass, 2 of which where killed by trains and 2 by motor vehicles, so 80% of the Grizzlies feeding on the dead cow dies themselves.
I can guarantee you two things that won’t happen, BNSF will not SLOW down trains nor will they reduce the number of trains that run at night.
Quote….And, adult female bears are “sows” not “cows.” But cows are cows and what I got out of it is a train hit a cow.
Maybe the bear huggers should camp out near the ROW to save the bears. Or perhaps close down Hwy 2 at night to prevent bear/vehicle collisions. Or maybe build a wall along that 67 miles of track on both sides of the track. Oh wait, I forgot walls don’t work.
(The grammar teachers can now correct my statement.)
The subject of the sentence is the noun coalition, not the noun groups. which is the object of the proposition of.
Sue the bears for straying onto the R/W.
Yes more than one group in a coalition, but a coalition is one, get it?
Aren’t groups plural?
Where are the editors?
“A coalition of wildlife groups are threatening to sue…”: is incorrect.
“A coalition” is singular–the correct grammar is “A coalition IS threatening to sue…”
And, adult female bears are “sows” not “cows.”
At least three bears were killed by cars in October (as in the story). But there’s no money in suing individuals. The rule of law is that the party with the most money is responsible, and besides corporations are evil (unlike the government).
Have all trains through the bear zone shove a coupled wheel set containing a large net that will scoop up the bear and let them jump off and run away. The wheel set light enough for a trainman to manually pushing it off and on the train.