Grizzlies Near Yellowstone May Lose Status

[tmfleo1]

Science & Technology News


Grizzlies Near Yellowstone May Lose Status

Updated 7:43 PM ET November 15, 2005


By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hunters eventually could be allowed to kill grizzly bears in three states if the government is successful in removing federal protections.

Grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park had dwindled to 220 to 320 animals in 1975, when they were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. In the past 30 years, the Interior Department says, the number of bears in that region has grown at a rate of 4 percent to 7 percent a year, and they now number about 600.

Because of this rate of recovery, the department on Tuesday proposed taking the grizzlies off the list.

Removing federal protection would allow Wyoming, Montana and Idaho to assume management responsibilities from the federal government for grizzlies around Yellowstone, and state plans leave open the possibility of limited grizzly bear hunting. Bears within Yellowstone and Grand Teton national park would remain off limits to hunting, however.



Environmental groups are split over the issue. The National Wildlife Federation supports ending the protections, saying it would highlight the success of the endangered species law. But the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and other groups contend the grizzly should remain on the list because too many threats to the animal still exist. They include oil and gas drilling, logging and the growing number of housing developments.

Republican lawmakers say the success of recovering the bears is a rarity under an endangered species law that is ineffective and burdensome to landowners. Fewer than 20 species have been recovered since President Nixon signed the law in 1973.

Many in Congress have called the law a failure, and the House passed a bill in September to lessen the government's role in managing species.

"The fact that we are rolling this out with such fanfare underscores what a rarity recovering a species is," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho. "It is a testament to the partnerships created in this case, but also a cry for reform of the ESA."

Interior Secretary Gale Norton said Tuesday that grizzly bear recovery has been a success because of cooperation between state and federal governments, along with biologists and conservation groups. She added, though, that the Bush Administration would like to see the law focused more on recovery efforts than on penalizing landowners who find endangered species on their land.

Four other grizzly populations in the lower 48 states will continue to be protected as threatened species under the act. These bears live in the Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Washington. Alaskan grizzly bears, which number about 30,000, were never listed.

Norton said Yellowstone grizzlies could be removed from the list as early as 2006, but acknowledged that litigation could delay the move.

___

On the Net:

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

[Rex322]

thats sad. people would just start hunting them again and the population woud go back down

[tmfleo1]

It is very sad I real don't know what the heck federal goverment is thinking if it happens they will put them back on the threaten list but might not recover a second time

[Alika]

I'll be surprised if it happens as early as they say. Bald eagles were supposed to be removed in 2000. That was five years ago, and there are still people arguing about whether or not it should be done.

[Genevieve]

"Fewer than 20 species have been recovered since President Nixon signed the law in 1973."

The law hasn't even been around long enough to get every animal off the list. Things don't bounce back right away, it may take 50 yrs or more and there are so many other issues.

[PythonGuy24]

If that happened there would be no bears left at all, all the big game hunters would flock there and within 2-3 months they would be gone before we knew it. It's so sad.

[unluckyseventeen]

WHAT!? That is so stupid. Hunting is stupid, in my opinion. I don't see the need to go out into the wild and end an animal's life just for the "sport" of it. Even if they do eat it, it'd be like me walking into someone's house, killing them, then eating them so their body doesn't go to waste.

Lame.

[PythonGuy24]

Hunting is ok to a point I think. I live in Colorado and there's a little mountain town called Estes Park, it's a great little place, the point of that is there are elk out-numbering people about 10:1, if not more, they don't kill just to bring the population down but hunting is big. I don't hunt but still agree with it if the conditions are ok.

[unluckyseventeen]

I don't know. In all fairness, the elk were there first.

New York is severly overpopulated but I wouldn't justify running in there and killing tons of people to keep it sparse.

I just find it unneccessary. Back in the day humans had to do it to survive. Now, it's just a game. Life isn't a game, and I don't think you'd be happy if something walked into your life and started hunting you.

No wonder all animals are afraid of us... because we treat them like crap.

[PythonGuy24]

Originally Posted by unluckyseventeen

I don't know. In all fairness, the elk were there first.
New York is severly overpopulated but I wouldn't justify running in there and killing tons of people to keep it sparse.
I just find it unneccessary. Back in the day humans had to do it to survive. Now, it's just a game. Life isn't a game, and I don't think you'd be happy if something walked into your life and started hunting you.
No wonder all animals are afraid of us... because we treat them like crap.

I agree, but the people in Estes bred them and they got loose and now we have a problem. Otherwise I agree with you 100%.

[Ptorgeaux]

Ok, I don't agree completely with them taking it off the list, but I wanna address some points. First of all, they're putting it in the control of the states rather than the federal government. This doesn't mean "automatic hunting season." It means the states decide, and I for one trust them not to open grizzlies for hunting right away. I'm willing to bet that those 3 states have some of the best wildlife management programs in the world.

Secondly, whether you hate killing animals or not, it needs to be done. Why? We've already eliminated many of the natural predators due to our hunting, fear, losing cattle, etc. So those positions need to be fulfilled by humans as hunters. Want to know what happens if people don't hunt deer, for example? Most of our mountain lions, panthers, bobcats, etc. are gone on the east coast. The deer would be overpopulated and eat everything below the "browse line" quickly. So what do you get? Sickly, skinny deer. Then disease sweeps through and you end up worse off than you were before.

Besides this, most people who hunt eat what they kill. It isn't solely for sport. I've noticed from conversations with hunters in my major (wildlife) that hunting is more about getting to be out in nature and enjoying the hunt and the skill involved rather than satisfying bloodlust (Though there are many people who satisfy their bloodlust in other ways, i.e. killing snakes. One guy told me today he head-pinned 3 snakes and beheaded them with his pocketknife on saturday). On this note, I'm not a hunter now but I think I'd like to try hunting some day.

So think before spouting your ignorance. Hunting is needed.

P.S. Animals are afraid of us because they were evolved to be and it would be an abomination of nature for them not to be.

[unluckyseventeen]

Great points, but those can't be measured. Just because some people THINK this will happen if they stop hunting doesn't mean it WILL happen. Deer don't eat meat, the last I checked, and there are plenty of plants to eat for them out in the wilderness. It's not like you'll see them flooding the streets of any major city if they start breeding at a normal rate. You can make that assumption, but I very highly doubt you'd have sickly dear walking around due to a lack of vegitation.

Besides, the percentage of deer killed by man compared to as many that live is very low, so this rampant breeding you're talking about seems very highly unlikely. I'd maybe see a small spike, but it's not like they'd start spewing out deer that run the likes of a city into the ground.

The point is, it's not necessary. Last I checked the balance of life was just fine until humans started walking around and killing stuff for their own convenience, and screwing with the natural balance of life.

The fact is, it's an opinion. You have yours, I have mine. I don't know that you'd call someone's opinions "spouting ignorance" but thanks for the random insult.

[Ptorgeaux]

...I hate to burst your bubble, but this time you're just plain wrong. Ask any conservationist. Heck, do a search on "deer overpopulation." It's not theory, it's sheer fact. And it's not opinion either. You're right, the balance of life was just fine til we started screwing around. But now that we've messed stuff up, we have to practice wildlife management which includes killing animals.

Some of the most important conservationists ever were hunters. Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, for example. Who do you think the Sierra Club is? Hunters were the first conservationists and have probably contributed more to conservation than any other group of people in this country.