Grizzly news for MT and WY

[GoatPackr]

Feds deny Montana petition to delist grizzly bears, propose new rule on populations

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has denied Montana and Wyoming’s petition to delist grizzly bears in the Greater Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems

www.kpax.com

 

[robertpaulsen]

This is unfortunately a big step backwards and disrespectful to all the effort already put forth in the recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48.

What a bummer.

 

[GoatPackr]

ESA needs gutted. In order for it to be used a clear path for recovery should be spelled out and not able to be changed. It's not supposed to be a special interest weapon with ever changing goal post.

Hopefully the administration can accomplish something like this very soon before more people are hurt.

 

[Legend]

This is just a partisan stunt. And one that is definitely going to backfire. What kind of a politician throws gas on a dumpster fire days before they loose complete control?

Probably going to work out well for the grizzly delisting. Not sure what the ESA is going to look like after it is re-written.

 

[mtwarden]

I've always thought of the ESA legislation as important and have seen many success stories over the years. Of late sadly it's become a tool of anti-hunting groups. If a threatened or endangered woodpecker is saved, everyone is patting themselves on the back and rightly so. If it's an animal that can be hunted/trapped on the other hand —ie wolf, grizzly lynx then no celebration, instead it's a never ending filing of litigation—forcing the original bar for delisting higher and higher and never to be achieved.

What I think they forget is that legislation can be repealed and if the ESA is repealed it's squarely on their shoulders.

 

[mike.adams.467]

Management by politics, instead of science and biology.

 

[Maxhunter]

Management by politics, instead of science and biology.

Yep agree 100%

 

[FlareBlitz91]

I imagine that i have more experience with the ESA than most. I have a Biological Opinion from USFWS on Grizzly Bears in the GYE dated two days ago.

It is known and acknowledged that the GYE and Northern Continental Divide populations are healthy, robust, and resilient, but there are other essential populations that are not (bitterroot, cabinet-yaak, and Selkirk) recovered at all, or occupied even in the case of the bitterroot.

The two recovered populations are considered essential for the success of the other populations, which I’m inclined to agree with.

The service is proposing to remove the distinct population segments and change the listed entity to be the “lower 48,” i believe this will clarify the recovery goals for the species overall.

Do i think that they should be delisted? I don’t know, living in the GYE it’s hard to argue against on a local level, but looking at the swaths of unoccupied wilderness in the northern Rockies im inclined to agree that the species as a whole isn’t recovered, but they’re close.

Full disclaimer:I’m an unabashed and unapologetic bear lover.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

It would appear the goalposts have drifted yet again. Color me surprised.

 

[Pro953]

I imagine that i have more experience with the ESA than most. I have a Biological Opinion from USFWS on Grizzly Bears in the GYE dated two days ago.

It is known and acknowledged that the GYE and Northern Continental Divide populations are healthy, robust, and resilient, but there are other essential populations that are not (bitterroot, cabinet-yaak, and Selkirk) recovered at all, or occupied even in the case of the bitterroot.

The two recovered populations are considered essential for the success of the other populations, which I’m inclined to agree with.

The service is proposing to remove the distinct population segments and change the listed entity to be the “lower 48,” i believe this will clarify the recovery goals for the species overall.

Do i think that they should be delisted? I don’t know, living in the GYE it’s hard to argue against on a local level, but looking at the swaths of unoccupied wilderness in the northern Rockies im inclined to agree that the species as a whole isn’t recovered, but they’re close.

Full disclaimer:I’m an unabashed and unapologetic bear lover.

But what is an area that is part of the historical range is no longer capable of supporting a population. By that standard they would never be able to delist. This is why it’s segmented into different population groups.

It’s like basing wildlife policy for deer in Montana based on herd dynamics in Texas.

The population even if hunted to support genetic diversity and growth into these other ranges so what is the “logical” reason?

Hell I love bears too, but that does not change the fact that this makes no sense to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

The two recovered populations are considered essential for the success of the other populations, which I’m inclined to agree

So, consider those populations recovered and turn them over to the state. The state is more than capable of dealing with recovered populations and can insure they stay that way.

The service is proposing to remove the distinct population segments and change the listed entity to be the “lower 48,” i believe this will clarify the recovery goals for the species overall.

That will certainly insure they are never recovered, exactly what the anti hunting groups have been pushing for decades.

When the ESA is repealed, we’ll see what folks pushing this agenda think of their “success”.

 

[StupidLightweight]

Didn't agency behavior like this result in the Supreme Court striking down Chevron Doctrine?