Too Many Bears? Legal Battle

[konrad]

Can you imagine actually being able to hunt Grizzly in the lower 48 with bow and arrow?

It seems to me the environmentalist extremists are never happy. They set a population goal and then when it is reached, refuse to allow individual State Fish and Wildlife Departments to manage the species.

Think of the money that could be generated by reintroduction of licensed hunting of the Great Bear in these areas, all of which would go directly into the game management program. The first time I saw this was with elephant and rhino. Then it was the Grey Wolf and now it is the Grizzly Bear.

The fact remains: Environmentalist Extremists want the banning of all hunting and fishing.


“PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Dueling attorneys for a conservation group and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offered starkly different opinions Monday about the future of the grizzly bear population in and around Yellowstone National Park, if the bear is taken off the threatened species list.
Three 9th Circuit Court of Appeals justices heard half-hour arguments and rebuttals from each side more than a year after the grizzlies were returned to the list by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.
The federal government is bullish on the bear's prospects, and state wildlife agencies from Montana and Wyoming have argued in briefs filed to the appellate court that officials are confident the bears won't go extinct if states are left to manage them.
Environmental groups say the bear's future is murky, and lifting protections now poses too great a risk to their survival.
Molloy's ruling, which resolved a lawsuit brought by the Montana-based Greater Yellowstone Coalition, highlighted the deaths of hundreds of thousands of whitebark pine trees over the past two decades.
The pine trees produce nuts that some grizzlies rely upon as a mainstay, and the number of trees has been falling. The reasons range from climate change to the presence of a destructive species of beetle, but the shrinking food source has pushed grizzlies to look for food in areas that increasingly bring them into contact with humans.
Allen Brabender, a U.S. Justice Department attorney, argued Monday that the bear's population has been growing from between 4 percent and 7 percent a year, and the bears will find a way to adapt without the whitebark pine seeds.
Appellate court judge Susan Graber said she saw a disconnect in the government's argument.
"You say they'll find other things to eat, so they won't starve,'' Graber said.
Brabender responded that the government didn't have to prove that the bears would find a replacement food source.
"Even in years without the whitebark pine being available, Yellowstone grizzly populations were still up,'' he said.
Tensions have been rising in the northern Rockies as the bear population increases and the animals spread into parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, where they prey on livestock, damage property and periodically attack humans.
The government agencies in favor of removing the bear from the threatened species list argue that an appellate court judge shouldn't act as a scientist in determining the whitebark pine seed issue, according to a brief filed by the state of Wyoming.
Longtime conservationist attorney Doug Honnold said the Yellowstone area is the "shining example'' of bear conservation, but areas around Yellowstone concern conservationists.
"At what point,'' asked judge Sidney R. Thomas, "does the grizzly get to where it could be delisted?''
Honnold declined to give a specific number but said the U.S. Forest Service number of 500 was too low.
Four other groups totaling about 900 grizzlies — all in the Northwest — have never lost their threatened status. Full grown male grizzlies can weigh 800 pounds and stand 8 feet tall. Most are omnivores, meaning they eat plants and animals.
As many as 50,000 of the animals once ranged the western half of the United States — striking terror in early European settlers who routinely shot, poisoned and trapped grizzlies until they were reduced to less than 2 percent of their historic range.
The Yellowstone-area population has grown from an estimated 200 animals in 1981 to more than 600 today.
In his ruling, Molloy said the government relied too heavily on population monitoring and failed to spell out what steps would be taken if grizzly numbers started to fall.
Honnold said after the hearing that the Greater Yellowstone Coalition is similarly concerned that the government won't keep tabs effectively on the grizzly population if it were delisted.
Montana wildlife officials argued in a brief filed to the appellate court that the rules that protect the species on a state level would match those provided by the Endangered Species Act, and that no single rule can ensure the bears will live.
"There are vast factual differences between decisions to list a species that is in jeopardy and declining ... and decisions to delist recovered species such as the grizzly bears in (Yellowstone),'' the state of Montana wrote in an appellant brief.
"Once a species is delisted, there is no single regulatory mechanism that will assure its survival,'' it said.”

The environmentalist’s argument reminds me of someone who wants proof of something that didn’t happen (i.e. prove to me there aren’t really aliens).

[Elkaholic daWg]

It seems to me the environmentalist extremists are never happy. They set a population goal and then when it is reached, refuse to allow individual State Fish and Wildlife Departments to manage the species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEVER happy, Unless they can be Dictators!!!

[Movemonger]

Wolf population was reached a few years ago. Yet they keep fighting to keep them listed  . This is BS

[L8NITE]

Apparently the elk population doesnt matter anymore...they really have there priorities screwed up! When managed correctly all species could thrive together instead of having way to many predator species. Just my 

[bearpaw]

Imagine the raffle ticket sales a grizzly bear tag would bring in WY or MT..... 

[BigFoot02]

I have heard from more than one tree hugger that the reason they fight so hard for predator populations to rise is so that we will not have the chance to hunt. It the minds of thes whack jobs more animals will be harvested per year due to natural predation. Tt wont be by the hands of hunters, it will be by the claws of the mountain lion or the fangs of the wolf..... And they are ok with that. These damn hippies need to focus on growing their pot plants and drinking their starbucks and leave animal conservation to the people who actually have a clue as to what needs to be done...... Who would want game populations to thrive more than the hunter? why would we want game populations to diminish to extinction? but once again the tree hugging hippies  hold most of the positions with the game and fish department and higher levels of government so the hunters voice is never heard... So my arguement continues to   

[rasbo]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/cb-y0wswl10X9TUe3afZIO8z9X9DDYkzryU/not_in_my_backyard/

[mulehunter]

Imagine the raffle ticket sales a grizzly bear tag would bring in WY or MT..... 

   why not let mt open grizzly hunt Last year.   It will make it better for economy. And. Why Feds kill over 64 grizzly alone by use government money. Its tax waste. But it would help for all 64 hunters if they do it with out use government money.  Economy is another many reason. We are here to help managed and use it.  Hopefully open hunt.

Mulehunter