That social piece is strong. The recent ruling on WSA21-01 is another exampleAnyone else catch this interview? https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/martha-williams-ufws-director-interview/
"MW: At USFWS, we always have to be grounded in the science, so the numbers are important. Yet with species like grizzly bears, we have a sense that as predators are recovering, the social piece is also really important. And that social piece—not putting the onus just on the tolerance of communities that live with bears or wolves, but also those who don’t like to see management-dependent species—they want to see species that aren’t reliant on state or federal management. So we have to factor shifting values in this country, and those shifting values are adding pressure to an already complicated issue."
So, ignore the science, ignore the people who live with these bears, we need to listen to what a bunch of wackadoo liberals in CA think about Grizzlies in WY, MT, and ID.
Pathetic this woman still claims to have a connection to Montana.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk