HELENA, Mont. -- Conservation groups are urging grizzly bear and habitat managers to take up stronger protections for the species in the Yellowstone region.

Several groups, including the Western Watersheds Project, Sierra Club and Friends of the Bitterroot, sent a letter to the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee (YES) of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC), which released a report in July on how to reduce conflicts between humans and bears. The YES Subcommittee also held a meeting on conflict reduction in October.

Jocelyn Leroux, Washington and Montana director for the Western Watersheds Project, expressed concern.

"We really think that the report relies very heavily on voluntary measures, and it's important to incorporate new tactics as conflicts increase and grizzly mortalities increase," Leroux cautioned.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported 48 grizzly bear deaths in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem this year. The YES Subcommittee did not respond to a request for comment.

The groups say managers need better tactics for addressing livestock conflicts, which is a major source of bear mortality. Leroux noted few livestock remain in the species' primary conservation area, or recovery zone, because third parties have compensated folks to waive their grazing permits there.

"That is a very concrete tactic that has been used and has proven to reduce livestock-grizzly conflict and grizzly mortality," Leroux contended. "Yet that wasn't seen anywhere as a recommendation to pursue more of that outside of the recovery zone."

The groups also claim the use of food storage, portable electric fences and bear spray is useful. Leroux suggested there should be more requirements for this equipment across the region.

"There's kind of haphazard implementation of regulations as it is," Leroux remarked. "So certain things are required of outfitters in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks but are absent throughout the rest of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem."

The IGBC executive committee will hold its winter meeting this week.

A bill to prioritize wildlife crossings gets a hearing in the state Senate Transportation Committee today.

The Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection Act would require Caltrans and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a strategic plan to map out where wildlife crossings are necessary to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and reconnect habitats.

Tiffany Yap - senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity - said the problem is particularly severe for mountain lions in parts of Southern California, which could soon face what's called an "extinction vortex."

"There's a lot of inbreeding occurring in these populations," said Yap. "And if that is occurring, we might start seeing signs of reproductive issues and other health issues. And they could become extinct within 50 years in those areas if we don't do anything to improve connectivity."

She noted that animals need to roam the landscape in order to find unrelated mates and pursue food and better habitat, especially as California experiences more drought and wildfires linked to climate change.

Data from the UC Davis Road Ecology Center show that Californians reported more than 44,000 wildlife-vehicle collisions from 2016 to 2020, resulting in much injury and death - as well as at least $1 billion in damages.

The bill also would require Caltrans to keep wildlife connectivity in mind when designing new roads or making repairs.

Assemblymember Laura Friedman - D-Burbank - is a co-author of the bill and is optimistic that it will pass.

"I don't think anybody's objected to the policy very much," said Friedman. "It's had bipartisan support. And we've made it less expensive because we took out the mandate that said that Caltrans had to do any particular number of projects."

The bill already has passed the State Assembly. The next step would be the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 12.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

A report from leaders in Washington state lays out how the services of four dams on the lower Snake River could be replaced in order to save ailing salmon species in the region. Now, the public has an opportunity to comment on it.

The draft report comes from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and found it is plausible to replace the dams and the services they provide, including to agriculture, transportation and energy production.

Erin Farris-Olsen, Northern Rockies and Prairies regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation, explained her organization favors removing the dams.

"The report itself is not surprising for many of us who have seen the lower Snake River dams as being an opportunity for our Northwest future," Farris-Olsen noted. "Removing the dams is in fact possible, and that it's really essential to avoid the extinction of salmon."

The plan's estimated cost is between $10 billion and $27 billion. A rally this Saturday in Portland will call for dam removal to save salmon. Supporters of the dams include Washington state Republicans, who say now is not the time to remove dams producing reliable power, especially with soaring energy prices across the country.

The report pointed out climate change could affect how productive the hydroelectric dams are. It said drought and low snowpack already are affecting their usefulness, and suggests replacing the dams with other renewable energy sources.

Farris-Olsen pointed out the region has spent billions of dollars on salmon restoration efforts that have not worked, and believes it should be taken into account when looking at the price tag for dam removal.

"It's also not just a cost to remove the dams," Farris-Olsen contended. "It's an investment in energy infrastructure that's going to be the future for the Northwest."

Farris-Olsen added the region is lucky there still are salmon to protect, but will not have that luxury if action is not taken soon.

"As a salmon fisher myself, it's been tough to kind of articulate the sense of urgency because the species themselves are so resilient," Farris-Olsen acknowledged. "They keep coming back, even if they're coming back in record-low numbers."

Public comment on Inslee and Murray's draft report is due by July 11. Ultimately, the power lies with Congress to approve breaching the federally-operated dams.

A measure in Congress which would fund local efforts to protect animal and plant species before they become endangered has passed the U.S. House and moved on to the Senate.

The Recovering America's Wildlife Act would dedicate $1.4 billion to the work of states and tribes, to prevent vulnerable species from declining.

Montana would receive $27 million a year to conserve nearly 130 species identified as being at risk, including bull trout and sharp-tailed grouse.

Alec Underwood, senior policy and development director for the Montana Wildlife Federation, explained the benefits of the legislation.

"There's a reason that every major hunting and fishing group in the country is backing this bill, and it's because hunters and anglers, and outdoor recreationists, for that matter, want to see our at-risk species recovered," Underwood asserted. "And ultimately, restoring their habitat will, of course, benefit the species that we like to hunt and fish."

Montana's outdoor industry provides more than $2 billion to the economy each year. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has been a leading voice on the measure, but its critics have called it flawed because it would create a spending program without a dedicated revenue source.

Collin O'Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, which supports the bill, said his organization has been speaking with members of the House and Senate to identify additional revenue sources. He also noted proactive measures to protect wildlife save money.

"If a species declines to the point where they need listing protections under the Endangered Species Act, it can be very expensive to try to recover the species at that point," O'Mara explained. "And it's a little like health care, right? It's a lot more expensive to wind up in the emergency room than it is to do your annual checkup to make sure that everything's working well."

O'Mara believes it is the most significant conservation legislation in 50 years.

"Right now, the one-third of all species that are at heightened risk of extinction, the 12,000 species of greatest conservation need -- desperately need -- action, and inaction is the greatest ally of extinction," O'Mara contended. "This bill is a solution that's of the magnitude of the crisis."

The bill passed in the House with bipartisan support. The Senate version already has 35 co-sponsors, nearly half of whom are Republicans.