Bowsite.com

The last admins attempt to stall this is falling apart as the agency is not even going to attend public meetings explaining their last Decision.

Will we make across the line this time?

I how so..

I know that not everyone here is in favor of using the ESA that way, but it’s pretty effective.

On par with judges that overturn decisions made by wildlife biologists too. You’re no different and you sure in hell aren’t a conservationist.

Anyone know how many and which management units/zones are recovered, reasons some are not, or the reason USFWS grizzly biologists recommended keeping them listed as threatened?

Makes no more sense to de-list grizzlies than it does to protect lions if there’s no science to drive the decision.

By the way, there isn’t one set of objectives for everyone grizzly management zone/unit. How many grizzly management populations are at objective? How many are below and why? Why did the USFWS bear biologists decide to keep them listed as threatened? What are the credentials of those biologists?

It’s all there if you want to inform yourself when determining your opinion. Or don’t. If you don’t then you’re no different than the Disney land animals rights activist that wants them listed indefinitely because they are against hunting…just the flip side of the same damn coin.

The USFWS did not propose delisting in the latest SSA. They proposed combining the population into 1 management unit with a 4(d) rule.

The OP is about bears delisted. They are not proposing delisting and the USFWS recommended that eliminate the management units (like GYE) are not with the last Species Status Assessment. Meeting the management goal in the minority of distinct populations segments (management) units wasn’t enough to warrant delisting.

“U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PULLS OUT OF ALL FOUR MEETINGS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN DECISION RETAINING GRIZZLIES’ THREATENED STATUS”

This was in the very title of the article of the link in the OP.

Why the hell do you think I asked the questions about the individual management unit objectives and why the USFWS say they should stay listed. BECAUSE meeting the objectives of a minority of management units might not be in the best interest of the species. As a result, there is no GYE objectives anymore and for biological reasons.

And for those of you that are unwilling to inform yourself (left or right) gives hunters a bad reputation. And by your last statement you don’t care how uninformed you are.

“ Someone needs to inform themself - lol literally.” On that we agree.

Bowfreak- you resemble that meme I posted above to a T

Makes sense to me. And a policy for dealing with problem bears on the fringes.

I wonder what the plan is/will be for when the population within the DSP hits the saturation point, though? Will they just provide for cropping them off as they trickle out — which would be primarily younger animals, I’d think — or would it be better from a population health standpoint to issue permits for mature animals deeper inside the DPS area? Just curious because I saw something about how taking out a really mature Tom cougar can open up a territory large enough for several younger Toms to move in; that’s either Good, because more males are breeding, which is good for genetic diversity, or it’s Bad because those Superior genes from the dominant Tom are passed on to fewer offspring in his lifetime, which amounts to Human Meddling in the Natural Scheme of Things… And if 3 younger Toms move in, that’s Net 2 more cats in the population, which probably bothers some people who are less receptive to having them out there in the first place….

I thought combining into a single DPS and the revisions to management was only just proposed, not the rule, yet.

You are a partisan hack and a joke. You are one of a few people who posts here that nobody would miss if you never posted again. USFWS did propose delisting in 2017. It was stopped by a radical posing as a federal judge.

Service Reaffirms Recovery of Yellowstone Grizzly Bear under the Endangered Species Act Apr 27, 2018

DENVER – Strong partnerships involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, federal and state agencies, tribes and other partners continue to contribute to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear’s remarkable recovery. Today, the Service reaffirmed its final rule delisting the GYE population under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

On December 7, 2017, the Service published a Notice of Regulatory Review in the Federal Registerrequesting public comment on any potential effects a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al.) may have on the June 30, 2017, GYE grizzly bear delisting final rule.

In the Notice of Regulatory Review, the Service requested public comments on whether the court ruling affects the GYE grizzly bear final delisting rule and what, if any, additional evaluation the Service should consider regarding the remaining grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states and their lost historical range. After a thorough review of public comments, the Service affirms the decision that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population is recovered and should remain delisted under the ESA.

The Service’s determination to designate a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population and delist it was consistent with the ESA, with Service policies, and with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s longstanding legal interpretation of the ESA. The Service will not initiate any further regulatory action for the population. The remainder of the grizzly bear population in the lower 48 states retains its designation as threatened under the ESA.

“USFWS did propose delisting in 2017. It was stopped by a radical posing as a federal judge.” so what. It’s not relevant in context of the USFWS recommended designation today. That DPS met its goals. What about the rest of the to the DPSs?

Just like the meme to a T. You think I’m here for a popularity contest. I don’t give a s#%t. The truth, facts, and conservation matters to me. Based on your posts you’re here for group think and are a follower.

Post more memes and continue to virtue signal then hopefully one of your ilk will come and throw you a lifeline.

Do you even know why? Of course not because you are the personification of the meme.

The delisting would have happened if it weren't for a known-to-shoot-down-all-hunting-related-legislation judge (read:politician).

This is not forcing the hand as was the case, for instance, with lions in CO. This is an attempt to unclog a turd.

Same thing happened with the wolves.

I've hunted around Cody, Pinedale, Dubois, etc, multiple times. The bears are thriving. Everyone who is in there knows it. The local biologists know it. They remain listed for political reasons only at this point.

Hunting a few bears will not harm the overall population and will help put some fear back into an animal whose very survival is aided by avoidance of humans to as much extent as is possible.

By definition Policy is political. Every person within organizations will have bias and preferences that end up making Policy decisions. If the science does not support said policy it will either be ignored or manipulated to go along with said policy.

Since many Anti-hunters infest the political and judicial system their bias is pervasive and very influential on “scientific studies and recommendations”. If you never worked in a bureaucratic setting or government agency you may be naive to the reality of how personal values and political motivations affect Policy and Judgments.

I am all for electing Politicians and Appointing Judges that share my common values and that will implement Policy that supports the outcomes I prefer. It’s how our current government works and the reason we have the right to vote.

As I mentioned the earlier how can Science support the Wild Horse and Burro Act? It can’t! It’s an outdated outrageous piece of legislation that unfortunately will never be revoked and mocks any scientific rigor on preserving native ecosystems.

Grizzlies and wolves should NEVER have been listed in the first place! They were never endangered! The whole “geographically” endangered is a fabricated abuse of the ESA. It like saying mice are endangered in my living room because there aren’t any now. There are plenty of wolves and brown bear world wide. NEVER a chance of them going extinct extinct.

15 years ago, I used to work in an Urgent Care where we had a mother that would bring in 5 snot-nosed kids in for every sniffle, literally every month, and would demand antibiotics for everyone of them, even though they didn't need them and in fact, they were harmful for the children, as over-use of antibiotics has been proven to be.

I would do education. I would do an exam and make sure they didn't need them. It didn't matter. She wanted what she wanted regardless.

I had a colleague that would just write the antibiotics for her kids because in his words, "it wasn't worth fighting with her." Her kids ended up on antibiotics 8 times in one year at one point in time. When she came in and I was on shift, she'd just walk out of the room without her kids being examined and say, "I'll just come back when so-and-so is here."

Just because someone says or does something and a result is had, doesn't make it right. A few ARA-leaning judges undoing the decisions of biologists or a Federal service under the auspices of an administration with a similar political tilt, revoking sound biology/science based on politics, is no different.

Biologists in WY have said that a small season on Grizzlies is appropriate.

Biologists in the GYSE said that wolves were recovered.

Biologists in the great lakes region have declared that wolves are not endangered.

All three of these decisions have been bottled by individuals at the Federal level (and now Minnesota, at the state level) based on political interference based on political ideology.

I can't support it going the other way, but in this case, it's being done to right a wrong.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/feds-say-grizzly-bears-still-threatened/

Take care.

Servheen ran the program for 35 years, and I’m of a mind to respect that; modifying your position based on new data is kind of part of the job description, so I’m not bothered by that.

But that’s just me listening to one of the Biologists who have a real handle on the situation; what Ike is objecting to is judges who are NOT listening to the experts, and I’m sympathetic to that, too….

Personally, I’d be happiest without judges involved, but it’s kind of a Balance Of Powers thing; there’s as much potential for Biologists to run amok as there is for Judges, which is why Peer Review, which I think is a much stronger influence in Science than in the Judiciary…. Which I suppose explains why my own biases lie where they do. But I’m merely BIASED — I’m not sold out either way. And I KNOW that I’m biased, so I have to be sure to question anything that’s just a little too comfortable or cut & dried….

This biggest issue that many miss id the bigger picture. Politics sets Policy which ultimately drives the “science”

150 years ago the Policy was to eradicate wolves, grizzlies etc and to settle the west. Making crops and livestock the priority. They used science to figure out how to best reach that goal in killing predators and developing ag land.

The arguments aren’t really about how many grizzlies or wolves there are on needed (as a global population there is an excessive amount) the real argument is whether they have value in a specific location and if it’s morally acceptable to kill animals.

None of that is science- it’s a moral question which makes it Political in the sense a human population makes it up and opposing sides will fight it out.

Science can answer the question of how to most effectively achieve a certain goal, so therefore best science is only useful if the end goal and means to achieve that goal are defined.

In this situation it is obvious one side never wants a wolf or grizzly killed, or for hunting to exist in human culture. That’s not a science question it’s a moral question and as such is ultimately set by Policy which is made by Politicians in our society.

Now yes there are instances where different parties theoretically agree on a certain end Goals or outcomes but will disagree on the way to get there based on other values and morals. That is when peer reviewed science can be logically applied.