It's Official

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,561
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Lawsuit seeks to reverse grizzly delisting

By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer

The grizzly bears in and near Yellowstone National Park face food shortages caused by global warming, a dearth of protected habitat and a shallow gene pool. Plus, there aren't enough of them to ensure their own survival.


And the government is ignoring this information because of political pressures.

That, in a nutshell, is the legal case presented by seven environmental groups in a lawsuit filed in United States District Court in Idaho Monday that seeks to halt the government's effort to remove federal protections for the bear.

On April 30, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the grizzly from the U.S. Endangered Species Act, where it had been since 1975.

Chris Servheen, the man who runs grizzly recovery efforts for FWS, said he wasn't surprised at the suit or its allegations.

“It's called the 'throw-it-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks's approach,” Servheen said Monday. “Nothing we could have ever done would prevent them from suing us. That's what they do. Whatever we achieve, they always want more than that.”

He also strongly defended the integrity of the government's delisting plans.

“The bottom line is we are committed to the future of the Yellowstone bears,” Servheen said. “We'll continue to be committed to them and we'll make sure the future of the bears is a good one.”

The bears are recovered, he said, and delisting acknowledges that.

The suit was filed by lawyers for EarthJustice, an environmental law firm. The plaintiffs are the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project, Great Bear Foundation and Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance.

Grizzly bear delisting has caused disagreements among some environmental groups. Other national groups, like the National Wildlife Federation and the Defenders of Wildlife, endorse delisting, Servheen noted. A number of Montana groups have stayed out of the fight.

The suit points to global warming and the “inevitable” loss of whitebark pine nuts, a critical food for grizzlies. Insects and plants the bears need could also suffer from global warming, the suit says, while brucellosis control and possibly chronic wasting disease could harm bison and elk numbers, another important food source.

The suit maintains that Yellowstone bears lack the genetic diversity they need for long-term survival and that there is “fierce political pressure” to limit the acres protected for grizzly survival.

“There's no political pressure whatsoever,” Servheen countered. “Politicians comment on things, but nobody has directed me to do anything I wouldn't do as a biologist.”

He said that for 26 years his agency has been moving toward delisting under several political administrations and the goal has always been delisting of a recovered grizzly population.

The Yellowstone grizzly population now numbers about 600 animals and is increasing 4 percent to 7 percent annually, Servheen said.

He agreed the globe is warming and habitats will change. But the key is in seeing how grizzlies adapt to those changes, he said. A $3.7 million annual program has been set up to monitor food supplies, distribution of bears, mortality and reproduction.

The suit points out there is no guarantee that money will be available for long.

Servheen said there's never a guarantee for federal money.

“The Defense Department doesn't have guaranteed funding,” he said. “Why should the grizzly bear?”

The suit also maintains the federal government created a “distinct population segment” when it protected all grizzlies in the lower 48 states but did not include abundant Alaskan grizzlies.

The Yellowstone population is the biggest in the lower 48 states, but because of the "distinct population" status, the suit alleges, it should not be delisted until all the bears are recovered, and some populations along the Canadian border contain only a few dozen animals.

Those bear populations -- from Montana's Yaak Valley to Washington's North Cascades -- need help, Servheen agreed.

“This lawsuit takes away from the work we need to do on the populations that are in serious trouble,” he said.
 
I thought that we could prove global warming has existed for the last 50+ years? If thats the case why did the bear populations increase during that time?

I don't think they have a snow balls chance of winning it. Do you? May prolong the removal, but don't think it will stop it.
 
May prolong the removal, but don't think it will stop it.
+!

These high profile type land use decisions will always get appealed. There is no way to make all 'interested' parties happy enough not to appeal.

On a different note, I'm glad to see Western Watershed working to improve the condition of riparian areas by joining this appeal...
 
"filed in United States District Court in Idaho" That alone makes it better than 50/50 odds of winning in favor of the huggers. Gee, how come they didn't file in Wyoming?

I read somewhere this should tie up delisting for 1 1/2 to 3 years. After that, if they lose, they intend to get some back east congress person to slip some language into an existing bill that would stop delisting. Good example of what is down the road for wolf delisting as well.

Your sarcasm is killing me Pointer!
 
There is definitely a judge in ID that seems to be more sympathetic to certain causes than elsewhere. I'd still bet the odds are less than 50/50 for them to win this appeal. For one, I can't imagine they have near enough data to show harm to themselves or grizzlies due to delisting. There will definitely be a bit of talking to hear yourself talk during testimony at this trial....ZZZZZ...ZZZZZZ
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,405
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top