Public sounds off on grizzly delisting
By SCOTT McMILLION
Chronicle Staff Writer
If it had been a baseball game, it would have been a rout.
At a Wednesday public hearing, 38 people opposed removing federal protections for the grizzly bear.
Only two people supported removing protections.
But it's not a baseball game. Removing an animal from the list of creatures and plants protected by the Endangered Species Act is a difficult and contentious process, as evidenced by the evening meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to delist the grizzly bears living in and near Yellowstone National Park, a move strongly opposed by most environmental groups.
Several themes emerged among delisting opponents;
€ Not enough habitat is being protected outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, especially in Wyoming.
€ The federal government has committed to spending $3.4 million annually on grizzly monitoring and management, $1.1 million more than it spends now. While that money has been committed for the short term, there are no long-term guarantees.
€ There are concerns about the genetic diversity of the Yellowstone population.
€ Bears could be susceptible to increased killing by humans after delisting.
€ Many bear advocates don't trust the Bush administration, which has been changing environmental protections, to manage national forests around the park with grizzlies in mind.
The complaints were not new, but they were abundant, and they spelled out that, when a formal delisting proposal is announced in coming months, it likely will face legal challenges.
Tim Preso, a lawyer for EarthJustice, a law firm that represents environmental groups, noted that one third of the grizzly population lives outside the "primary conservation area," where they get the highest level of protection.
"There's a disconnect," Preso said, because the government is relying on high bear numbers while much of their habitat is not protected.
Chris Servheen, grizzly recovery coordinator for FWS, said the bear population is at a minimum of 600 animals, and has been growing by 4 percent to 7 percent annually for several years.
Most of the speakers were local people, but people from as far as California, Canada and Austria spoke up to oppose delisting.
Delisting "is premature by a few years," said Gerald Murnin, a retired Yellowstone ranger now living in Bozeman.
ESA protections keep agencies and land managers focused on conservation, he said. Without it, the "cutting edge" can be lost.
Two speakers endorsed delisting.
Randy Newberg, who sat on the state round table working up Montana's post-delisting management plan, said all the questions and concerns he heard had already been answered.
"These people know what they're doing," he said. "I have no doubt that the best grizzly bear biologists in the world drafted this plan."
Sterling Miller, of the National Wildlife Federation and a bear biologist in Alaska for 20 years, reiterated that his group supports delisting.
All the previously established recovery targets for the bear have been met, through cooperation from many groups, he said. If delisting doesn't happen, previously cooperative people and agencies "will get out of the boat," he predicted.
Comments on the delisting proposal will be accepted through March 17. Visit the FWS Web site at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm for information on how to comment.
By SCOTT McMILLION
Chronicle Staff Writer
If it had been a baseball game, it would have been a rout.
At a Wednesday public hearing, 38 people opposed removing federal protections for the grizzly bear.
Only two people supported removing protections.
But it's not a baseball game. Removing an animal from the list of creatures and plants protected by the Endangered Species Act is a difficult and contentious process, as evidenced by the evening meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to delist the grizzly bears living in and near Yellowstone National Park, a move strongly opposed by most environmental groups.
Several themes emerged among delisting opponents;
€ Not enough habitat is being protected outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, especially in Wyoming.
€ The federal government has committed to spending $3.4 million annually on grizzly monitoring and management, $1.1 million more than it spends now. While that money has been committed for the short term, there are no long-term guarantees.
€ There are concerns about the genetic diversity of the Yellowstone population.
€ Bears could be susceptible to increased killing by humans after delisting.
€ Many bear advocates don't trust the Bush administration, which has been changing environmental protections, to manage national forests around the park with grizzlies in mind.
The complaints were not new, but they were abundant, and they spelled out that, when a formal delisting proposal is announced in coming months, it likely will face legal challenges.
Tim Preso, a lawyer for EarthJustice, a law firm that represents environmental groups, noted that one third of the grizzly population lives outside the "primary conservation area," where they get the highest level of protection.
"There's a disconnect," Preso said, because the government is relying on high bear numbers while much of their habitat is not protected.
Chris Servheen, grizzly recovery coordinator for FWS, said the bear population is at a minimum of 600 animals, and has been growing by 4 percent to 7 percent annually for several years.
Most of the speakers were local people, but people from as far as California, Canada and Austria spoke up to oppose delisting.
Delisting "is premature by a few years," said Gerald Murnin, a retired Yellowstone ranger now living in Bozeman.
ESA protections keep agencies and land managers focused on conservation, he said. Without it, the "cutting edge" can be lost.
Two speakers endorsed delisting.
Randy Newberg, who sat on the state round table working up Montana's post-delisting management plan, said all the questions and concerns he heard had already been answered.
"These people know what they're doing," he said. "I have no doubt that the best grizzly bear biologists in the world drafted this plan."
Sterling Miller, of the National Wildlife Federation and a bear biologist in Alaska for 20 years, reiterated that his group supports delisting.
All the previously established recovery targets for the bear have been met, through cooperation from many groups, he said. If delisting doesn't happen, previously cooperative people and agencies "will get out of the boat," he predicted.
Comments on the delisting proposal will be accepted through March 17. Visit the FWS Web site at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm for information on how to comment.
