USFWS loses appeal on Grizzly delisting in 9th District Circuit Court

[MO Betta]

Appeals court: Yellowstone grizzlies are protected until USFWS completes study

An appeals court has agreed that the Yellowstone grizzly bears must remain on the Endangered Species List until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts a full analysis of the other three subpopulations, among other things.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Scrappy]

Did anyone really expect the 9th circus court to do anything.

 

[Irrelevant]

Anyone know how many moose are in the GYE or mt goats or... (rhetorical). Just seems like people, from city folk to judges, can't grasp what management is or means.

 

[ccc23454]

Didnt expect anything less, their not dealing with it daily. I mean why not let lawyers and special interest groups manage populations their obviously the experts. Not the various federal and state wildlife mangement organizations with their science and facts.

 

[TheTone]

Bummer. The inability to delist them will probably kill off any chance of reintroductions in other areas IMO.


The quote to start her opinion is a bit of a head scratcher for me

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Bummer. The inability to delist them will probably kill off any chance of reintroductions in other areas IMO.

This point cannot be overstated.

 

[Jape]

The appellate court did uphold the district court's ruling of requiring a more robust analysis regarding the long-term effects of removing protections, however they did overturn Christensen's ruling requiring a comprehensive review of grizzly bears across the lower 48. That actually speeds up the removal process quite a bit.

 

[Irrelevant]

The appellate court did uphold the district court's ruling of requiring a more robust analysis regarding the long-term effects of removing protections, however they did overturn Christensen's ruling requiring a comprehensive review of grizzly bears across the lower 48. That actually speeds up the removal process quite a bit.

Will the State/USFWS appeal? Doesn't seem like a SCOTUS level issue.

 

[Sytes]

They agreed with Christensen that the agency needed to assess connectivity because there were “no concreted, enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure long-term genetic health of the Yellowstone grizzly.”

Horse chit...

A recent paper by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (study team) and collaborators documents that, in spite of a century of isolation from other bears and moderately low genetic diversity, grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) are not losing genetic diversity or suffering from inbreeding. In addition, the study provides independent evidence that the population has increased substantially since the mid-1970s and is approaching the point where the number of breeding individuals is sufficient to assure long-term genetic viability.

 

[Jape]

Will the State/USFWS appeal? Doesn't seem like a SCOTUS level issue.

I think you’re right, especially since it has been analyzed quite thoroughly in the lower courts, and SCOTUS is really preoccupied with higher profile cases right now and the foreseeable future.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Will the State/USFWS appeal?

I think they're better off trying to jump through the hoops, we see how long this decision took, just produce a more robust analysis and make the judges happy! I actually think delisting is eminent, there's agreement on both sides that the bears seem to be doing fine for now, just need more long-term assurances, might take a while still, but I think it's coming.

 

[COEngineer]

there's agreement on both sides that the bears seem to be doing fine for now

I don't know which two sides you are looking at...the anti-hunters will never admit the bears are "doing fine" because they know that means hunting will be allowed, which is anathema to them. They would say the sky is down and water is dry if it kept the bears from being hunted.

 

[LuketheDog]

I don't know which two sides you are looking at...the anti-hunters will never admit the bears are "doing fine" because they know that means hunting will be allowed, which is anathema to them. They would say the sky is down and water is dry if it kept the bears from being hunted.

Plus, the more legal battles they can have over it, the more money their lawyers make...

 

[kwyeewyk]

I don't know which two sides you are looking at...the anti-hunters will never admit the bears are "doing fine" because they know that means hunting will be allowed, which is anathema to them. They would say the sky is down and water is dry if it kept the bears from being hunted.

Yes the anti hunters will never accept it, that is true, I was referring to one of the previous hearings where one of the litigant's attorney acknowledged that the current populations are currently doing well, don't remember his exact wording, but that there weren't enough safe guards because some of the previous delisting criteria like translocations that had been required would only be "considered" under the current delisting language.