Obama Administration Pushes To Delist Yellowstone Grizzly Bear

Mother grizzly_and cub Wiki

December 8, 2015

ACTION ALERT – TIME SENSITIVE

No animal is safe from the Obama administration’s USFWS. Dan Ashe wants the grizzly bear delisted and why do you think that is? SO THEY CAN BE HUNTED!!

I know all the trophy hunters are just licking their lips waiting for the Great Bear to become another notch in their belts. Montana and Idaho wolves are suffering under horrible persecution because of this awful agency and now USFWS is after the Yellowstone grizzly.

Grizzly bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates of all large mammals. Cubs stay with their mothers for up to three years, which means they’re not breeding during that time. Grizzly bear populations could crash very quickly if  they are subjected to hunts. But of course the trophy hunting crowd the USFWS represents doesn’t care about that. They just want the chance to shoot a grizzly bear.

Another serious problem is Yellowstone grizzly bears are an isolated population, which makes it very difficult to connect with other bears.

Yellowstone-area bears are an isolated population. Having fewer bears would decrease the chance of naturally connecting Yellowstone grizzlies with other populations…”

The “bear experts” are having their “little 2 day meeting” today and Wednesday in Missoula, Montana, to scheme and plot to make hunting the grizzly a reality. Of course it will be all about how they just want to protect the great bear, just like they are protecting the wolves of Montana and Idaho, uh-huh.

If you live in Missoula or are able to travel, please attend these meetings and COMMENT!!! Stand up for the Great Bear!

“Public comment is taken at the end of work sessions each day of the meeting. The public comment time is tentatively scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday.” That’s tomorrow and Wednesday, December 8th and 9th.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Winter Meeting, December 8-9, 2015 Holiday Inn Missoula Downtown

http://www.igbconline.org/images/pdf/151208_Exec_Agenda.pdf

===

States, Feds agree to at least 600 Yellowstone-area grizzlies

by | DECEMBER 7, 2015

Update: 7:15 p.m. December 7, 2015

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department would recommend no hunting of mother grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year at their side if and when it proposes a hunting season, an agency spokesman said Monday.

The state anticipates adopting regulations that follow “standard wildlife practices,” such as the prohibition against hunting mothers with cubs, Game and Fish spokesman Renny MacKay said. Wyoming could manage Yellowstone-area grizzly bears if and when federal protections are lifted as federal wildlife officials anticipate.

“It is something we would be willing to bring forward to the commission,” MacKay said of the prohibition. “We do that with mountain lions, we do that with black bears.”

Wyoming also is committed to a grizzly population that includes well-distributed females of reproductive age. That’s one of the federal benchmarks for determining whether the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly still needs protection under the Endangered Species Act.

“That’s something Wyoming is absolutely committed to maintain,” MacKay said.

Several aspects of the delisting process still have to play out, including release by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of a conservation plan, a proposed rule and population-monitoring documents. Wyoming, Idaho and Montana also would have to adopt state regulations if they want to have hunting seasons.

Wyoming’s Game and Fish Commission, a body appointed by the governor, is charged with setting such regulations and seasons in Wyoming.

“Ultimately, if Wyoming takes over management of grizzly bears again, we have to ensure a recovered population,” MacKay said. “That’s at the heart of all of this. We want the flexibility to be able to adjust to changing conditions, changing populations and changing science.”

Sierra Club doesn’t like the idea of a 600-bear trigger before “discretionary mortality” ceases, said Bonnie Rice, senior representative for the organization’s Greater Yellowstone/Northern Rockies campaign.

“We disagree with driving down the population,” she said Monday. “Six hundred bears is well below the current estimate, so that is of great concern to us in terms of [potentially] reducing the population by over 100 bears.”

She and other conservationists still see threats to grizzlies, including that Yellowstone-area bears are an isolated population. Having fewer bears would decrease the chance of naturally connecting Yellowstone grizzlies with other populations, she said.

“One of the biggest things for us is linkage zones,” Rice said.

She’s also worried how states will balance and coordinate on the number of bears killed and how any multi-state limits might be enforced. “We don’t have that framework yet,” she said.

Other groups also reacted. “Once again we see Director Ashe cutting deals for political expediency instead of following the science,” Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement. “The Endangered Species Act is incredibly effective at recovering imperiled species, and will do so for grizzlies across their range, but only if they retain protections until the science clearly demonstrates recovery.”

Genetic isolation from other populations worries Western Watersheds Project, a spokesman for that group said in a statement. “Recovery isn’t a math equation, it’s a geography question,” said Josh Osher, Montana director for the group. “The states’ tentative agreement with the Service fails to ensure connectivity throughout the species’ range and fails to address the livestock operations that are the root cause of lethal conflict for the grizzly bear.”

http://www.wyofile.com/states-feds-agree-least-600-yellowstone-area-grizzlies/

grizzly cub and mom

 

Letter from Washington provoked discussion

The country’s top wildlife official wrote state game chiefs in September agreeing the Yellowstone-area grizzly bear population could decline to 600 — 114 fewer than today’s count of 714 — once federal protections are lifted.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe’s Sept. 24 letter to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana officials was confirming the minimum number of bears and other measures the four agencies had agreed to at that point. Until the 600-bear trigger is reached, “discretionary mortality” of grizzly bears — which could include hunting — could continue.

Ashe and state officials are negotiating a complex agreement that would see the bear removed from protections of the Endangered Species Act and put under state management. Such a move would open the door to grizzly bear hunting in the three states but not in Yellowstone and most of Grand Teton national parks.

Details of the talks have been closely guarded, and state and federal officials have not confirmed details of the September letter obtained by WyoFile over the weekend.

Ashe and the three state wildlife directors met twice in September, Ashe wrote, at which time they hammered out the details. “Based on these two meetings, I believe we have a mutually understood process that will allow the Service to proceed with a proposed delisting proposal…” to remove the Yellowstone grizzly from ESA protection, Ash’s letter said.

The bottom-line number is one of several trigger points set in the letter. When bears number between 600 and 673, annual female bear losses — including through expected hunting seasons — would be limited to 7.6 percent, and to 15 percent of the male population. More liberal losses — 10 percent female and 22 percent male — would be allowed when there are more than 747 bears, the letter states.

But federal and state agencies did not wrap up all aspects of post-delisting grizzly bear management in September, and Ashe’s letter acknowledges that. One point of discussion appears to be whether matters usually left to states — like prohibiting the shooting of a mother bear with cubs by its side — could be required by the federal government before turning over authority.

“States have agreed to consider additional regulatory mechanisms that will be part of individual state management plans/regulations…” Ashe said in the letter. Those state regulations would be referenced in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisting rule, bringing them under federal jurisdiction, the letter says.

Agencies still working on final plans

“We’re looking at regulatory mechanisms that would be included in a new conservation strategy,” Wyoming Game and Fish Chief Game Warden Brian Nesvik said in a Nov. 12 interview with WyoFile. “That’s where the discussions have occurred. What needs to be identified in a delisting rule? What is under the purview of the three states?”

Wyoming wouldn’t manage grizzlies down to a minimum number, whatever that turns out to be, Nesvik said in November. In that interview, he said no final number had been agreed to.  “We have not discussed that to this point,” he said.

Wyoming’s wolf plan hews closely to the minimum population requirements set by the federal government. But wolves, as a species, reproduce faster than grizzly bears.

“I do not believe the Fish and Wildlife Service is interested in that same type of set of circumstances,” Nesvik said. “That has been part of the discussion. They’re interested in a different approach with bears.” Wyoming would “manage for a viable grizzly bear population well above the recovery criteria.”

Wyoming knows how to set big game and trophy hunting seasons, he said. “I think we would rely pretty heavily on our track record,” Nesvik said. For example, with black bears and mountain lions, “there’s certainly more [hunting] opportunity than there’s ever been,” he said.

“We would look to be able to manage grizzly bears in a manner consistent with the values we’ve held with those other species,” he said. “The public still needs to weigh in. The Game and Fish Commission has been very considerate of the fact the way we do business in this state is we include the public.”

Three critical pieces are necessary for delisting: a conservation strategy outlining long-term sideboards to ensure grizzly survival, an official proposed rule that sets administrative and legal parameters, and a document on population monitoring. After those are ushered through federal rulemaking and possible litigation, states would take over.

Federal and state officials are meeting in Missoula, Montana, for three days starting Tuesday when Wyoming Game and Fish Director Scott Talbott is scheduled to give a delisting presentation and update.

— This story has been updated to reflect that Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Scott Talbott is on the agenda for an update on grizzly delisting, not Brian Nesvik. Talbott is on the IGBC agenda with  Matt Hogan, deputy regional director of the USFWS — Ed.

http://www.wyofile.com/states-feds-agree-least-600-yellowstone-area-grizzlies/

===

Letter of concern sent to Dan Ashe, Director USFWS in December 2013 about the pending delisting of the grizzly bear from Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/grizzly_bear/pdfs/Grizzly_bear_data_request_letter_12-19-2013.pdf

===

Photo: Wikipedia Commons

Posted in: grizzly bear, biodiversity

Tags: Dan Ashe, USFWS pushing delisting, Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Dec 8-9, Yellowstone grizzly bears in danger, low birth rate, Missoula, Montana meeting, trophy hunters,

 

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/obama-administration-pushes-to-delist-yellowstone-grizzly-bear/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

24 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Is there no one in Idaho, Montana & Wyoming that cares?

    Like

    • Probably some, but remember, these western states are full of ranchers–they are anti wolf, coyote, prairie dog, mountain lion,–you name it. This anti-wildlife mentality has been going on since the late 1800’s–well, they might just keep some elk, deer around and even enough “carnivores” for trophy hunting!

      Like

  2. Sorry to say that this administration is the worst. Against ALL wildlife. SHAME.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Reblogged this on tvassila.

    Like

  4. Haven’t you figured this out yet? Whatever 99% of America wants, Obama will take away. He came into office thinking this was his ‘kingdom’ and he will do whatever he wants to change it to his ‘beliefs, ways’ in order for it to become another 3rd world country where he reigns. So…whatever we, the American people want, whatever is right for ‘OUR’ country….Obama will deny. There is no reading in between the lines here.

    Like

    • Protect the Grizzly bear. Don’t let the Federal government take them off the endangered species list. Dan Ashe is useless. He is pro hunting. Obama’s administration is a disappointment with animals. Keep them protected.

      Like

  5. Our wildlife needs to be protected.

    Like

  6. Leave the Bears alone, get rid of the Trophy Hunters.

    Like

  7. That is why I am not a fan of politics or the government, most don’t care about the environment or anything else. We always go around in circles making the same careless mistakes. There are plenty of people in this world to conquer any problem but seems like we would rather have our coffee in the morning and watch the world burn down around us.

    Like

  8. I thought, only six percent of Americans liked to hunt and kill the strands in the web of all life like wolves and native bears????

    Like

    • Yes, Tess, that is about right, which sounds good, doesn’t it? But, the majority (who do not hunt, trap, graze) are also not really “anti” and just accept what this vocal, persistent minority preach. Just look at all the nice, Liberal folk now following Bernie Sanders, who has publicly defended hunting–calling his own state of Vermont, “a big hunting state”–hoping to get the NRA hunters to vote for him. When I found this out, I e-mailed him, and will now never support this guy. This is how the majority is–if we want to really crush hunting,grazing, we must become staunchly “ANTI” –not compromising. Does the NRA or the grazing industry compromise? No. They know where they stand, and they never give up. That is why the wildlife are losing. “Our side” is just too compromising, wimpy. Ask the wolves what we should do, eh?

      Like

  9. Not good news. As the human population continues to increase and habitat decreases, we will see more and more of this.

    For one, we need to get those ranchers and drillers, etc. out of parks and protected areas. They have no business there. And trophy hunting should become a relic of the past.

    It’s too late in the game with too much to lose to continue on as if nothing has changed. Everything has changed. And we need to move forward as a species and protect the diversity that is left.

    Like

  10. Not good news. As the human population continues to increase and habitat decreases, we will see more and more of this.

    For one, we need to get those ranchers and drillers, etc. out of parks and protected areas. They have no business there. And trophy hunting should become a relic of the past.

    It’s too late in the game with too much to lose to continue on as if nothing has changed. Everything has changed. And we need to move forward as a species and protect the diversity that is left.

    Like

    • Thanks for your comments, Linda! -unless we get the livestock industry out of public lands (many ranchers are hunters/trappers, too), there is no hope for native wild animals. The public lands are they’re last hope and refuge. I keep talking about this, but do not see the political or activist will to do anything “active” about this. Many of the “wildlife groups” (I also say this a lot) have also capitulated and compromised with both hunting/ranching, which is why we really have no “activism”–just groups asking for donations to “save wolves, bears..” There was an anti-grazing movement back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, before most “wildlife” groups became corporate, with CEOs. Your comments are well taken, as far as I’m concerned.

      Perhaps we should at least start a grassroots effort to go after all the alleged wildlife groups, like Sierra Club, Defenders, and others (some listed on this blog), and demand that they take a firm stand and fight the grazing industry? Ask these groups if they have hunters, ranchers on their staff or on their boards–some do, & some just want to “co-exist” with them–and how is that working for the wolves, grizzly, etc?
      Frankly, if we just keep whining about all the killing, nothing will be done.

      Like

  11. The ESA is under attack. I urge you yet again to listen to science and the American people. Do not allow federal protection to be stripped from these apex predators. Bears and wolves are no where near recovery levels. Keep federal protection in place.

    Like

  12. It’s sad that this is all happening under a Democratic administration. It’s all too human – wanting to create the appearance of successes to further their own agendas and careers. If the wolf and sage grouse are any indication of ‘success’, the grizzlies are in trouble.

    This administration defines the disconnect from what wilderness means and the intent of the National Parks. They are not there as glorified zoos for entertainment, like Sea World. “Every Kid in the Park” has been a failure too. Counting the minutes till 2016, when this confederacy of dunces leaves office ‘for other opportunities’.

    Like

  13. Huh. I have zero faith in these people. WY’s ‘track record’ is what I’m afraid of!

    No matter what prohibitions and restrictions are put in place, they cannot be enforced in the field. Once a bear is shot or killed in some other lovely manner humans can devise, it’s gone. They cover their asses with the McKittrick rule for killing wolves, and with bears it’s ‘we were afraid for our lives so we had to shoot’ and nobody questions it. It’s common knowledge that bear spray isn’t even considered.

    As we saw in Florida’s free-for-all, there’s no control of hunting. Between cubs staying with their mothers for three years and no reproduction during that time, I see a lot of female bears killed, and cubs left to die. There’s no way to convince anyone that this plan is a good one.

    I hope they are taken to court.

    Like

  14. Some people are getting an early start:

    “Black bear hunters are expected to know the difference between legal black bears and grizzly bears before shooting, Fish and Game officials say. Legal baiting for black bear hunting was going on in the area, the agency said.”

    And they only get charged with misdemeanors, if that. So I’m not thrilled about any assurances from USF&W or the states.

    http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/dec/08/2-hunters-cited-in-killing-of-grizzly-bear-near-wa/

    There’s also some brainless beauty queen from KS charged with illegally killing a grizzly in Alaska.

    Like

  15. On Racing Extinction it was mentioned that obama, in 2010, was in secret negotiations with Japan to legalize commercial whaling. Presently, Most of our Democrats are as sold out to Industry as Repubs. Vote GREEN, Bernie Sanders, he is for ESA protections of our Wolves.

    Like

  16. I am very disgusted about it too. Also this is enviromental policy of the most developed country of the world? Whom want american politicians
    to listen, to scientists or to ignorants and criminals…?

    Like

  17. […] Sourced through Scoop.it from: howlingforjustice.wordpress.com […]

    Like

  18. Reblogged this on Sherlockian's Blog.

    Like

  19. […] Obama Administration Pushes To Delist Yellowstone Grizzly Bear […]

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: