Come on baby, light my fire....................

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Yellowstone Up Close and Personal Chat Page Version 1.60 ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Ballpark Frank ( on 08:45:12 01/31/15

In Reply to: grizzly approval for shooting by gov't. posted by seremarcus


This is interesting news, but not the least bit surprising. Certain environmental groups, the Sierra Club being one of them, took legal action years ago to prevent the de-listing of the Yellowstone grizzly. They have also resisted the de-listing of wolves, utilizing similar tactics.

On the surface, it appears to be a noble cause, but a look beneath the veneer reveals what I see as systemic problems. One major issue I have is that we (our society) have a number of other, more endangered species that need to be listed (like lynx, wolverines, and the Yellowstone cutthroat trout), and this endless monkey-wrenching of the USFWS de-listing process has served to postpone the action on these other species. (One could argue that there is some chauvinism at work here, because grizzlies and wolves are "sexier" species, more popular with wildlife watchers.)

The fact is that both grizzlies and wolves have met the agreed upon prerequisites that were established for delisting years ago. Ag interests and other interest groups, who want both species delisted will argue that the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are trying to change the rules of the game after the game has started. Folks like the Farm Bureau, whose reluctant agreement to drop their fight against wolf reintroduction was crucial in paving the way to wolf reintroduction, will tell you they will not allow themselves to be "suckered" on another species, after seeing certain environmental groups acting as "dishonest brokers". This boomerangs against less popular/visible species in much greater need of listing.

What I find ironic is that a few decades ago, NOBODY knew the relative importance of the whitebark pine nut in some grizzly's diets. Now, this discovery is becoming the lynchpin in legal actions to prevent grizzly delisting. I wonder if certain legislative interests will eventually tie the lawsuits to this research, and simply deny funding to future research. If you think the Wyoming congressional legislation might not try such a maneuver, thing again. Look at the efforts undertaken by the Wyoming state government to circumvent the USFWS pre-reqs for wolf de-listing.

The fact is that all 3 principal states (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) have post-delisting management plans in place, audited and approved by the USFWS, and those plans include the equivalent of "damage hunts", to reduce human-grizzly conflict. What the USFWS is apparently doing is assisting the states in managing the grizzly population in this overly-litigious environment.

I also have major problems with the numerous estimates of the Yellowstone Grizzly population, the thinly-veiled special interest driving the estimates, and the bogus logical extensions made from the arguments. I watched the NPS and other members of the IGBST go conservative on numbers for many years, wanting to err on the side of caution, prior to meeting the delisting objectives. I had no problem with that until the cleft between fiction and reality grew to amazing width. Now, certain environmental groups have taken up the banner, arguing the population is static (grizzly watchers know better), and the expanded range is being driven primarily by the demise of the whitebark pine. These groups are not giving the Yellowstone grizzly any credit for being the creative, opportunistic forager that it is!


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Please enter the following value as your Submit Key:     
Submit Key:
Note: The Submit Key is Case Sensitive. Do not Copy and Paste!

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Yellowstone Up Close and Personal Chat Page Version 1.60 ] [ FAQ ]