• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Subscribe
  • Donate

WyoFile

Indepth News about Wyoming People, Places & Policy. Wyoming news.

  • Latest News
    • Education
    • Energy
    • Legislature
    • Native America
    • Natural Resources
    • People
    • Photo Friday
    • Places
    • Policy
  • Voices
    • Drake’s Take
    • Madden’s Measure
    • Guest Column
    • Studio Wyoming Review
  • Supporters
    • Membership
    • Underwriting
    • Foundations
  • COVID-19
  • Latest News
    • Education
    • Energy
    • Legislature
    • Native America
    • Natural Resources
    • People
    • Photo Friday
    • Places
    • Policy
  • Voices
    • Drake’s Take
    • Madden’s Measure
    • Guest Column
    • Studio Wyoming Review
  • Supporters
    • Membership
    • Underwriting
    • Foundations
  • COVID-19

Appeals court says Yellowstone grizzlies must remain protected

December 6, 2011 by Environment & Energy News 1 Comment

Tweet
Share
Pin
Email
0 Shares
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Appeals court says Yellowstone grizzlies must remain protected

Reprinted with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. Not for republication by Wyoming media.

A federal appeals court last week upheld a Montana judge’s decision that the federal government must protect grizzly bears near Yellowstone National Park.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling found the Interior Department failed to prove that a decline in whitebark pine — a key food source for grizzlies — would not threaten the species’ survival.

But the San Francisco-based appeals court reversed U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s 2009 finding that existing regulatory mechanisms failed to ensure the species’ continued recovery.

The ruling came as a victory for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a Bozeman, Mont.-based conservation group that challenged the government’s decision to remove grizzlies from the federal endangered species list in 2007.

“We appreciate the strong language of the 9th Circuit Court saying that [the Fish and Wildlife Service] must further study the demise of the whitebark pine and its impact upon grizzlies before it can delist the Yellowstone griz,” Mike Clark, the group’s executive director, said in an email. “We look forward to working with the feds and state officials on plans that ultimately will delist the griz when it is appropriate.”

The decision means federal agencies must continue to manage lands to protect the iconic species, which could affect activities like logging, mining and road building in the West.

At the time of the species’ original listing in 1975, grizzly numbers in the lower 48 states had dwindled from about 50,000 in 1,800 to between 136 and 312 near Yellowstone, the court wrote. The species has since rebounded slightly, numbering more than 500 at the time of its delisting in 2007, FWS said.

“It’s certainly welcome news,” Bill Snape, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said of the decision.

“The Interior Department completely swept under the rug the reality that the species is losing one of its major food sources to climate change,” he said. “Interior’s behavior was the definition of ‘arbitrary and capricious.'”

In its delisting decision, Interior cited studies stating that while there is a connection between whitebark pine and grizzly survival, the animals will adapt because they are opportunistic omnivores and will not be threatened by the loss of whitebark pine (E&ENews PM, Sept. 21, 2009).

The states of Montana and Wyoming defended the government’s delisting decision in the case, arguing the bears won’t go extinct under state management.

As grizzly numbers rise in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, some have blamed the animals for preying on livestock, damaging property and sometimes attacking humans.

(Banner photo by Shane Lin/Flickr)


Popular Articles:


Dire outlook for bees raises possibility of listing


Oil and gas industry doesn’t need another handout


The unsupportable cost of Wyoming’s tax giveaways


Filed Under: Environment, Policy

About Environment & Energy News

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Wyoming Think Tank says

    December 6, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Do we even have to protect them when they are outside the approved habitat area?

      Reply

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules:
    - Identify yourself with full name and city. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same.
    - No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic.

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Primary Sidebar

    • Email
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Twitter

    Tweets by @WyoFile

    Search WyoFile

    Become an Underwriter
    Sign Up for Free Weekly Newsletters

    Recent Comments

    • John Warnock on A modest proposal for solving Wyoming’s budget woes
    • Andrea Morgan on 400 seconds of tolling for 400,000 dead
    • bruce vojtecky on Adverse solar bill advances after heated subsidies debate
    • Lynn Carlson on A modest proposal for solving Wyoming’s budget woes
    • Robert Nickens on The unsupportable cost of Wyoming’s tax giveaways

    Footer

    Recent Posts By Date

    January 2021
    M T W T F S S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
    « Dec    

    From The Archives

    • About Us
    • People
    • Careers
    • Freelancing
    • Underwriting
    • How to Republish
    • Subscribe
    • Contact Us

    Copyright © 2021 by WyoFile