Grizzly bear delisting

[6mm Remington]

Folks they have extended the comment period for the public on the delisting of the grizzly bear from the endangered species act. What ever your thoughts of feelings, I hope that everyone takes a couple of minutes to comment on this. I think it's really important. If a person chooses not to comment then I feel they completely give up the right to complain about it later on if it doesn't turn out as they had hoped!!

David

Regulations.gov

 

[jm1607]

Folks they have extended the comment period for the public on the delisting of the grizzly bear from the endangered species act. What ever your thoughts of feelings, I hope that everyone takes a couple of minutes to comment on this. I think it's really important. If a person chooses not to comment then I feel they completely give up the right to complain about it later on if it doesn't turn out as they had hoped!!

David

Regulations.gov

Thanks for the link. Done.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Comment posted.

 

[buttekid]

Thanks for the heads up. Comments posted.

 

[tipsntails7]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackovis]

Comment posted!

 

[mtnkid85]

Thanks for posting! I saw this earlier and commented.

 

[elkyinzer]

I hate to piss on yinzes Wheaties this fine morning, but I do hope you all realize that when they receive 100,000+ public "comments" on such a matter, they are filtering out 99.9% of them. And why wouldn't they as dumb as the general populace is?

This is straight from the guidelines they publish for tips to submit helpful comments:

-Read and understand the regulatory document you are commenting on [it's like a million pages of "scientific" research - any of you actually do this?]
-Feel free to reach out to the agency with questions
-Be concise but support your claims
-Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted
-Address trade-offs and opposing views in your comment
-There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment
-The comment process is not a vote –one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters

Effectively, I can tell you that they really only take into consideration the comments made by the major stakeholders that employ the researchers to write intelligible responses using all the proper scientific jargon (and that have the high $ lawyers to back them). Thus the importance of belonging to conservation orgs like RMEF, BHA and such.

However, reading through all the city dwelling animal lover comments is pretty good entertainment for a few minutes. Holy crap are those people are out of touch with the real world.

 

[I Beam]

I hate to piss on yinzes Wheaties this fine morning, but I do hope you all realize that when they receive 100,000+ public "comments" on such a matter, they are filtering out 99.9% of them. And why wouldn't they as dumb as the general populace is?

This is straight from the guidelines they publish for tips to submit helpful comments:

-Read and understand the regulatory document you are commenting on [it's like a million pages of "scientific" research - any of you actually do this?]
-Feel free to reach out to the agency with questions
-Be concise but support your claims
-Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted
-Address trade-offs and opposing views in your comment
-There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment
-The comment process is not a vote –one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters

Effectively, I can tell you that they really only take into consideration the comments made by the major stakeholders that employ the researchers to write intelligible responses using all the proper scientific jargon (and that have the high $ lawyers to back them). Thus the importance of belonging to conservation orgs like RMEF, BHA and such.

However, reading through all the city dwelling animal lover comments is pretty good entertainment for a few minutes. Holy crap are those people are out of touch with the real world.

This is spot on.

This is just off the top of my head. But I would possibly write a hand written letter. (less likely to glaze over it) Here's about more or less what I think a letter should look like.

Dear... (insert agency beaurocrat)

Grizzly Bears should be taken off the endangered species list. Because the latest published studies I am aware of show their numbers are much larger than previously thought, and the species is not endangered.

Removing the Grizzly Bears would increase the safety and enjoyment of those visiting our National Parks. In fact, a visitor to Glazier National Park was recently killed. Removing the Grizzly from the list would help prevent future attacks. Allowing reasonable management, and culling forces the bears into safer areas. Bears no longer fear human activity and their numbers have increased to become a danger to park visitors.

It only seems logical more will die if sensible measures aren't taken to protect the public.

Removing the Grizzly from the endangered list best for those wanting to enjoy the parks in safety and help the Bears in the long term.

Thank you,
Ken

If I were to work on this some more, I would likely shorten it. Make it more concise and site studies in favor of removing it. Studies that in fact were part of this rule change. Just shooting from the hip here.

Keep it concise, cordial, clear. Make sure you state your position and WHY. and Because...

 

[I Beam]

Also, when a snail mail letter is sent. A warm body has to take that letter, open it, and scan it into the system. If it is one page. Concise and clear, it will likely have a bigger voice.