U.S. judge orders federal protection restored to Yellowstone grizzlies

By Laura Zuckerman

 

FILE PHOTO: A grizzly bear roams through the Hayden Valley in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, U.S. on May 18, 2014. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart/File Photo

 

PINEDALE, Wyo. (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday ordered Endangered Species Act protections restored to grizzlies in and around Yellowstone National Park, halting plans for the first licensed trophy hunts of the bears in the region in more than 40 years.

 

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana, sided with environmentalists and native American groups by overruling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to strip the grizzlies of their status as a threatened species.

 

The Trump administration's decision in June of last year to "de-list" the grizzly, formally proposed in 2016 during the Obama era, was based on agency findings that the bears' numbers had rebounded enough in recent decades that federal safeguards were no longer necessary.

 

The de-listing, welcomed by big-game hunters and cattlemen, had applied to about 700 Yellowstone-area grizzlies in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

 

Environmentalists countered that treating those bears separately from other grizzly populations in Montana and elsewhere in the lower 48 states was biologically unsound and illegal under the Endangered Species Act, and the judge agreed.

 

Christensen also found that the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to apply the best available science, as required under the law, in evaluating continued threats to grizzly populations, including limitations in its genetic diversity.

 

The judge pointed to two studies cited by the agency that he said actually contradicted the government's own conclusions that the Yellowstone grizzlies could remain independent and genetically self-sufficient. In his 47-page opinion, Christensen called the agency's reasoning "illogical."

 

The judge's ruling, if upheld, would make permanent a court order barring Wyoming and Idaho from going ahead with plans to open grizzly hunting seasons allowing as many as 23 bears in the two states to be shot and killed for sport outside of Yellowstone park. The season had been set to begin on Sept. 1.

 

U.S. law prohibits hunting altogether inside the park, and Montana had decided against a grizzly hunt, citing its own concerns about long-term recovery of a bear population that is arguably one of the most celebrated and photographed in the world.

 

Native American tribes, which revere the grizzly as sacred, sought reinstatement of the bear's threatened status as essential to protecting their religious freedoms.

 

Ranchers, who make up a powerful political constituency in Western states, have strongly advocated de-listing grizzlies, arguing the bears' growing numbers pose a threat to humans and livestock. Agitation for state management of the bears has also come from hunters, who highly prize them as trophy animals.

 

But the judge said he discounted such factors.

 

"This case is not about the ethics of hunting and it is not about solving human- or livestock-grizzly conflicts as a practical or philosophical matter," he wrote, adding that his decision rested strictly on his determination that the Fish and Wildlife Service had exceeded its authority.

 

(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman; Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Sandra Maler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-25

8 minutes ago, webfact said:

Christensen also found that the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to apply the best available science, as required under the law, in evaluating continued threats to grizzly populations, including limitations in its genetic diversity.

 

The judge pointed to two studies cited by the agency that he said actually contradicted the government's own conclusions that the Yellowstone grizzlies could remain independent and genetically self-sufficient. In his 47-page opinion, Christensen called the agency's reasoning "illogical."

Failing to apply the best science and illogical. 

 

Yep, that sounds like a typical decision from the current administration. 

 

If big game hunters want to hunt something, let the scum hunt each other. 

good work Judge.

Good let the bears hunt Donald junior 

This is the most famous bear in the area and should they resume Grizzly hunting she is considered to be the biggest trophy of them all. 

 

https://buckrail.com/shes-back-grand-griz-399-wakes-with-cubs-in-grand-teton-np/

                                       

 

                                      Arm the Bears

20 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Failing to apply the best science and illogical. 

 

Yep, that sounds like a typical decision from the current administration. 

 

If big game hunters want to hunt something, let the scum hunt each other.  

Of course you missed the little part, about how your hero's administration proposed the same thing.

 

The Trump administration's decision in June of last year to "de-list" the grizzly, formally proposed in 2016 during the Obama era, was based on agency findings that the bears' numbers had rebounded enough in recent decades that federal safeguards were no longer necessary.

6 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Of course you missed the little part, about how your hero's administration proposed the same thing.

 

The Trump administration's decision in June of last year to "de-list" the grizzly, formally proposed in 2016 during the Obama era, was based on agency findings that the bears' numbers had rebounded enough in recent decades that federal safeguards were no longer necessary.

And apparently those findings were not very well founded.

Excellent this has been retracted, at least for the moment.

1 hour ago, dcutman said:

Of course you missed the little part, about how your hero's administration proposed the same thing.

 

The Trump administration's decision in June of last year to "de-list" the grizzly, formally proposed in 2016 during the Obama era, was based on agency findings that the bears' numbers had rebounded enough in recent decades that federal safeguards were no longer necessary.

You seem to think this is just about Democrat/Republican.   It's not.   It's about conservation.   Because they may be not be considered as endangered or in need of protection does not mean they should be hunted.   

 

1 hour ago, dcutman said:

Of course you missed the little part, about how your hero's administration proposed the same thing.

 

The Trump administration's decision in June of last year to "de-list" the grizzly, formally proposed in 2016 during the Obama era, was based on agency findings that the bears' numbers had rebounded enough in recent decades that federal safeguards were no longer necessary.

No heroes for me in politics. 

 

I missed nothing. 

 

Things are proposed and rejected all the time. 

 

My contempt is for for those who pass such disgusting measures. 

 

“If you want to go big game hunting, do it on a one to one basis armed only with the tools that you were born with.
I wonder how many big game hunters would turn yellow, and run?”

Anthony T. Hincks

10 minutes ago, Credo said:

You seem to think this is just about Democrat/Republican.   It's not.   It's about conservation.   Because they may be not be considered as endangered or in need of protection does not mean they should be hunted.   

 

Everything on Thai Visa is about Trump hate. This is an appointed Obama judge, if Obama was still president or Hillary didnt screw things up so badly,  Grizzly Bear season would be open, and we would not be having this conversation.

7 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Everything on Thai Visa is about Trump hate. This is an appointed Obama judge, if Obama was still president or Hillary didnt screw things up so badly,  Grizzly Bear season would be open, and we would not be having this conversation.

Would make no difference to me who passed it.

 

Hunting and killing for pleasure is a disgusting, filthy pastime. 

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Would make no difference to me who passed it.

 

Hunting and killing for pleasure is a disgusting, filthy pastime. 

Hunting is done for meat. People eat meat, unless you are a vegan. The pleasure is being in the outdoors and in nature. Hunters do not kill and then walk away from the carcass. After shooting an animal it must be gutted and carried out of the area and then packaged for consumption. A person that eats meat and is against hunting is a hypocrite because they pay for other people to kill the meat that they eat. Humans have hunted since there have been humans.

 

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Hunting is done for meat. People eat meat, unless you are a vegan. The pleasure is being in the outdoors and in nature. Hunters do not kill and then walk away from the carcass. After shooting an animal it must be gutted and carried out of the area and then packaged for consumption. A person that eats meat and is against hunting is a hypocrite because they pay for other people to kill the meat that they eat. Humans have hunted since there have been humans.

 

I am vegan. 

 

Hunting for pleasure is unforgiveable. 

 

It is unnecessary. 

 

It is wrong. 

 

It is pure cowardice. 

 

You want to be outside in nature and enjoy it, that’s fine. I find it highly enjoyable.

 

The need to slaughter those sharing nature with me on the other hand, is contemptable. 

23 hours ago, webfact said:

The judge's ruling, if upheld, would make permanent a court order barring Wyoming and Idaho from going ahead with plans to open grizzly hunting seasons allowing as many as 23 bears in the two states to be shot and killed for sport outside of Yellowstone park. The season had been set to begin on Sept. 1.

 

Hunting and shooting any animal, not for food, to protect people or livestock, but for "sport", for " trophies" is a quite bizarre and for me disturbing concept.

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

I am vegan. 

 

Hunting for pleasure is unforgiveable. 

 

It is unnecessary. 

 

It is wrong. 

 

It is pure cowardice. 

 

You want to be outside in nature and enjoy it, that’s fine. I find it highly enjoyable.

 

The need to slaughter those sharing nature with me on the other hand, is contemptable. 

We will agree to disagree.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a vegan, except thinking that one is morally superior to someone that enjoys eating meat.

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

We will agree to disagree.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a vegan, except thinking that one is morally superior to someone that enjoys eating meat.

You brought dietary choices into this, not me.

 

Hunting for pleasure is wrong.

 

Those calling themselves big game hunters are nothing but cowards.

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

You brought dietary choices into this, not me.

 

Hunting for pleasure is wrong.

 

Those calling themselves big game hunters are nothing but cowards.

And you are the one thinking you are morally superior over others that do not feel the same way.

Just now, Ahab said:

And you are the one thinking you are morally superior over others that do not feel the same way.

Nothing to do with moral superiority.

 

Just knowing what is right and wrong.

 

Big game hunters are in the wrong, because of their cowardly actions.

 

Not sure how hunting makes one a coward or not, and deciding to not go hunting somehow makes a person not a coward. As long as the meat is not wasted there is nothing wrong with hunting for food.

30 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not sure how hunting makes one a coward or not, and deciding to not go hunting somehow makes a person not a coward. As long as the meat is not wasted there is nothing wrong with hunting for food.

That is not what this story is about.

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Nothing to do with moral superiority.

 

Just knowing what is right and wrong.

 

Big game hunters are in the wrong, because of their cowardly actions.

 

Yup..

 

Give them a spear with a piece of flint on the end or a bow made from any old sapling-and say "Off you go!Have fun!"

 

As our ancestors had to do it.

12 hours ago, Scott said:

This is the most famous bear in the area and should they resume Grizzly hunting she is considered to be the biggest trophy of them all. 

 

https://buckrail.com/shes-back-grand-griz-399-wakes-with-cubs-in-grand-teton-np/

 

Thanx for posting.

Heartwarming story.

I wonder if THAT dentist would be interested? To add to the Lion he already has?

18 minutes ago, thaiguzzi said:

 

Thanx for posting.

Heartwarming story.

I wonder if THAT dentist would be interested? To add to the Lion he already has?

Or a fenced in national park where dentists and so called "survivalists" are allowed to roam free until culling season begins.

 

I'd love to get me a dentist..

A lot of the early American "way of life" has been diluted and commercialized.   Meanings of holidays are lost, and depending on your outlook, that may be a good thing.  Hunting and fishing for sustenance is basically gone, taken over by the same kind of commercialism.  Urban folk get kitted out at the Outdoor Megastores with all the latest gadgets and drive their $50,000 4-Wheel drives out of town for the "experience".    Josh Brolin did a film about it called "Legacy of a Whitetail Deer Hunter".  Tiresome, I couldn't watch the whole thing through, but thought it was a good effort to memorialize the death of a part of US culture - at least in some areas of the country.

 

 

Everything bagged, tagged and wrapped in cellophane at Walmart.   Same as my Dad did to us when we were kids, I had fun with my sister's kids out in Southern California when they were young. 

 

"Hey kids, do you guys like to eat DEAD chicken?" 

"No Way!  That's gross!  Ewwww!". 

 

-Wait a few minutes while they check FB/Insta on their smartphones, then:

 

"Who wants KFC?"  

"Me, me me!  Extra crispy with BBQ sauce, please!"  ????

 

I reckon sport hunting will eventually drift away altogether, possibly replaced by a 3D virtual immersion experience.   Porn stars have already seen the future.

 

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

We will agree to disagree.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a vegan, except thinking that one is morally superior to someone that enjoys eating meat.

 

I am not a vegan and I enjoy eating meat. Beef lamb and pork are my favourites.

 

Killing any animal for "sport" is not the same thing at all.

 

 

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Not sure how hunting makes one a coward or not, and deciding to not go hunting somehow makes a person not a coward. As long as the meat is not wasted there is nothing wrong with hunting for food.

 

So you would be happy to be hunted, killed and eaten by a bear would you?

 Perhaps have your throat ripped out and eaten by a lion or a tiger, maybe smashed up and stomped on by an elephant that was stalking you.

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I am vegan. 

 

Hunting for pleasure is unforgiveable. 

 

It is unnecessary. 

 

It is wrong. 

 

It is pure cowardice. 

 

You want to be outside in nature and enjoy it, that’s fine. I find it highly enjoyable.

 

The need to slaughter those sharing nature with me on the other hand, is contemptable. 

 

 

Yep, it certainly takes a REAL man to stride out into nature and use a high-powered rifle to shoot and kill a comparatively defenseless animal -- all for the pleasure of mounting its stuffed head on someone's livingroom wall, or turning its hide into a rug somewhere. That's certainly what REAL men do...

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

So you would be happy to be hunted, killed and eaten by a bear would you?

 Perhaps have your throat ripped out and eaten by a lion or a tiger, maybe smashed up and stomped on by an elephant that was stalking you.

Well..fair's fair.