Wildlife
Grizzly Bears Back on Endangered Species List
Judge: States’ G-Bear Protection Doesn’t Make the GradeBy Jill Kuraitis, 9-21-09
 |
|
 | |
| Photo by Don DeBold | |
|
When grizzly bears were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in 2007, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition sued in federal court, and on Monday, they won.
“But the biggest winner is the grizzly bear, an iconic symbol of Greater Yellowstone’s power and beauty,” says a press statement from the Coalition.
The decision, handed down by Judge Donald W. Molloy in Montana district court, finds that, among other reasons, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not adequately consider the impacts of global warming and other factors on whitebark pine nuts, a key grizzly bear food source: “There is a disconnect between the studies the agency relied on here and its conclusions.”
Grizzlies were delisted when former Idaho Senator and Governor Dirk Kempthorne was Secretary of the Interior, and Kempthorne is listed as one of the defendants.
To determine if a species should be listed as threatened or endangered, agencies must consider five factors; the same factors apply to determine if a previously listed species should be delisted. The factors include the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
The GYC’s suit argued that regulatory mechanisms weren’t enough to protect the bears because of a USFW Conservation Strategy agreement that “is unenforceable and non-binding on state and federal agencies.”
There are only about 500 grizzlies left in the greater Yellowstone area, and their numbers are declining slightly because of conflicts with hunters and global warming which is making food scarce. The bears are also in danger of over-inbreeding because of the population’s isolation, and safe passage between Yellowstone and central Idaho forests to help introduce new genes will be key to their survival, the lawsuit says.
“Our hope now is that the Fish & Wildlife Service goes back to the drawing board and comes up with a plan that provides appropriate habitat protections and addresses long-term threats to bears,” said Craig Kenworthy, GYC’s conservation director
The listing upgrade can be appealed by U.S.F.W., but the bears would remain endangered during the appeal. The Service could also re-write the Conservation Strategy document and submit it for a new decision.
You can download and read Molloy’s decision here (link opens PDF), which is a remarkably clear and interesting legal document.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Looks likes these groups can add this to the bison fiasco and the idiotic C.U.T. deal that they brokered. I's laughable that they call themselves "conservation" groups.
GYC helped broker the CUT deal with the NWF and the GYC took the lead to overturn the "reprehensible wildlife management" that delisted "the grizzlies in the first place." You're kind of bashing and applauding the same group in the same comment. I don't disagree with you. I agree that the CUT deal was a miserable fiasco, primarily because the GYC lacked and still lacks the street savvy to be dealing with people like CUT. I also agree that the GYC has done a laudable job on reversing this grizzly delisting (pun intended). Especially considering all the grizzlies lost over the past year, the delisting was premature and I'm happy to see the GYC prevail in this case. I just thought you might want to know that it's the same bunch, just acting way outside their skill set in one case and well within it in the other.
Jill should have read the decision before writing her piece. There are about 600 grizzlies in Yellowstone, at least. Nowhere in the decision are the words "global warming" or climate change mentioned. Neither does it says that the population is declining (it isn't) or that there is increased scarcity of foods (although the judge speculated that this scarcity of pine nuts might occur). The judge found against the plaintiffs on the genetic isolation issue and on the DPS and "significant portiton of their range" issue. Judge Malloy, in fact, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on largely biological issues rather than legal issues thereby substituting his judgement on these biological points for that of the professional biologists in the state and federal agencies who wrote the Conservation Strategy. Judge Malloy was scornful of the idea of "adaptive management" being sufficient to respond to problems but this kind of management is, in fact, the only kind of management that can be done and has been successfully done for both listed and unlisted species. It appears that he won't be satisfied to delist bears unless a rigid "isolution" is established for each problem that might occur and...even if this is done he'll likely quibble over whether that solution is based on "best available science".
Instead of joining Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk who portray Malloy as an "activist judge," wouldn't it be more accurate to say he's the first "common man" with the power to look at the science behind delisting and say, "no way." There was tremendous public opposition to delisting grizzlies. Opponents included 267 scientists, many of them biologists belonging to the International Association for Bear Research and Management. The US Fish & Wildlife Service essentially ignored those comments and proceeded to delist bears. Judge Malloy looked at the evidence, and the farce of a process, and said, no way.
It's a victory for grizzly bears and the public. It proves the value of the National Environmental Policy Act, and warns arrogant public officials of the perils of treating NEPA as an obstacle to their goals, rather than a tool to make excellent decisions.
I'm not sure what you mean when you write that Judge Molloy was "substituting his judgement on these biological points for that of the professional biologists . . .". The ruling makes it clear that the court was troubled by the "disconnect" between the studies USFWS was citing in support of delisting and what was actually in those studies.
USFWS seemed to want to say, "whitebark pine isn't really in trouble [based on outdated information], and even if it was, it's really not that important to grizzlies." To support this line of argument, the agency cited studies that make no such claims. That's an abuse of discretion, and doesn't do much to generate trust.
It seems a lot of experts want to use their status (PhD, MS, whatever) to operate in a non-transparent way and not have their claims challenged by anyone (even by people with equivalent credentials). That's completely unrealistic and unacceptable in an open society like ours. Besides the judiciary, there is no other check on this kind of abuse.
We don't have a "Science Branch" in our system of government to resolve disputes among scientists. If agency scientists choose to ignore substantive criticisms from other scientists, the only remedy is to take it before a judge. No way around it, someone with a law degree is going to be asked to interpret matters of complex ecological science.
I agree with you that we have to have adaptive management, but we can have it with clear re-listing triggers and other guaranteed responses, not a bunch of wishy-washy stuff about a "review." Maybe people would have more faith in assurances about "status review" down the road if USFWS was at least being forthright about whitebark pine when they delisted in 2007.
Abundant whitebark pine seeds were probably the biggest single factor in the growth of the Yellowstone grizzly population from the mid-1980s til recent years. Not because every single bear was eating whitebark seeds, but because many reproductive age females were doing so. The seeds provided them with high-quality nutrition (fat & protein) right before denning up for the winter, which increased their likelihood of emerging with new cubs, as well as the likelihood of having a large litter of cubs.
Also, female grizzlies that used whitebark pine were less likely to be in conflicts with people, since whitebark tends to be up on high ridges and out of harm’s way. They’re probably also less likely to have run-ins with male grizzlies, because the males in the fall are more likely to be seeking elk meat.
Many Yellowstone grizzlies rarely eat whitebark pine seeds, and most Yellowstone grizzlies got through years when whitebark seeds were scarce by eating other things.
Whitebark pine is important to Greater Yellowstone's grizzlies; without it we should probably expect Yellowstone grizzlies to be on long-term downward trend. But not because every bear used to rely heavily on whitebark. The relationship between population trend and whitebark is clear, but it plays out in marginal changes in reproduction and recruitment that add up to major trends in population growth (or decline).
So people pay the government to kill bears here! 430 Grizzlies were killed in 2007, 87 per cent by trophy hunters, 363 by affluent foreign sport hunters.
I have watched the bears in the wild and think it is insane that they may be shot down for the sport. I would like to bring awareness to this issue and believe that the Humane
Society International will do this.
Please help me stop this senseless killing--support me in the Race to Save the Bears
Humane Society International
Donna R