Grizzly lawsuits - Anyone surprised?

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
16,714
Location
Bozeman, MT
I am not surprised, and I suspect none of you are also. It is a given that this would happen, so let's get the lawyering done and get on with de-listing.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Groups plan grizzly lawsuit

By MATTHEW BROWN
Associated Press writer
BILLINGS, Mont. -- Conservation groups on Tuesday challenged the federal government's plan to remove Yellowstone-area grizzly bears from protection under the Endangered Species Act.

In March, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the removal of the grizzlies from the list of "threatened" animals effective April 30, capping what officials described as a successful three-decade effort to recover the animal from near-extinction.

The change would remove some federal protection and open the door to future public hunting of grizzlies for the first time in decades.

On Tuesday, eight groups notified the Fish and Wildlife Service that they intend to file a lawsuit in 60 days if the delisting is not reversed. The groups argue the more than 500 bears now living in and around Yellowstone National Park are too few to guarantee long-term survival of the population in the face of global warming, habitat loss and other pressures.

"There is not shortage of things wrong with this," said Bozeman, Mont., attorney Douglas Honnold with Earthjustice, which is representing the groups.

Honnold pointed to a recent decline in whitebark pine trees -- a staple of the grizzly's pre-hibernation diet.

"With global warming influencing bark beetles that kill whitebark pine trees, we face a future where every year is a bad year for whitebark pine, and the consequence is every year is a declining year for Yellowstone grizzlies," he said.

Fish and Wildlife Service regional director Mitch King said he had not yet seen the conservation groups' notice, but defended his agency's action as appropriate.

"I don't think the world's perfect, but we've done just about everything humanly possible to make sure grizzly bear populations remain stable in and around Yellowstone," he said. "I think we've got a good (recovery) package, and I think we can defend it in court."

King said the Fish and Wildlife Service would continue monitoring grizzly bears in cooperation with state agencies. The agency's grizzly bear recovery coordinator, Chris Servheen, said $3.7 million annually will be spent on the program, a $1.1 million increase from current spending.

Four other groups of grizzly bears in the lower 48 states would retain their "threatened" status under the government's proposal.

As many as 50,000 grizzlies, which can reach 600 pounds and up to 8 feet tall when standing on their hind legs, once ranged the western half of the United States. After European settlers arrived, the animals were routinely shot, poisoned and trapped until they were reduced to less than 2 percent of their historic range, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

An estimated 136 to 312 bears remained in the Yellowstone area when they were listed as threatened in 1975.

The conservation groups filing the notice of intent to sue Tuesday were the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Humane Society of the United States, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watershed Project, Great Bear Foundation and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The first of many lawsuits to come. I hope the USFWS doesn't fold up on this issue.
 
Be interesting to see if Wester Watershed can keep their 'undefeated' streak in litigation going with this one! ;)

I hope the USFWS wins this one. I could see in setting a bit of precedence if the lose.
 
They should offer Grizz tags now, with a lottery and use the money to defend themselves. Something of that nature.
 
I'd like to see the USFWS hire a ruthless pitbull attorney and go after these guys. Then when they win, sue for legal fees. Too often when the enviro legals win, we the taxpayers end up paying their legal fees. But when the public wins, we don't even try to get legal fees back. Pisses me off just thinking about it.
 
Too often when the enviro legals win, we the taxpayers end up paying their legal fees. But when the public wins, we don't even try to get legal fees back.
I agree wholeheartedly!!
 
I'm thinking no one is winning on this front except the lawyers...

It's entertaining to see both sides trying to get ahead and these
1_4_127.gif
lawyers are bilking the system dry
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,395
Messages
2,019,605
Members
36,153
Latest member
Selway
Back
Top