A judge has returned Endangered Species Act protections to grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem/NPS
Grizzly bears that roam the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have regained protection from hunters under the Endangered Species Act due to a judge's ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not adequately consider how delisting the bears would impact the species as a whole. The much-anticipated ruling brought an end to grizzly hunts in Idaho and Wyoming before they could begin.
In his 48-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen said the Service "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem" by not carefully reviewing how the decision would impact grizzly populations in the lower 48 states. Furthermore, he said the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to commit that any future approach to estimating grizzly numbers in the ecosystem is "calibrated" to the approach to justify delisting.
Interestingly, Judge Christensen's finding on that second point mirrors concerns voiced two years ago by Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk, who at the time was the only voice on the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee opposing the conservation strategy that was to be used once the bears lost their ESA protections.
Wenk, who is retiring this month, at the time told the Traveler he was concerned about the "ambiguity" of the conservation strategy's intent to continue to base grizzly bear populations on the so-called Chao2 estimator. That estimator factors in numbers of grizzly sows not observed by researchers working on estimates. While the conservation strategy said the Chao2 methodology would be used for the "foreseeable future," Superintendent Wenk wanted greater assurance that Chao2 would remain in the plan.
Some see the Chao2 method as being too conservative, and that the grizzly bear population could be substantially higher than the nearly 700 bears thought to be in the ecosystem. If the population is, for example, actually 1,100 bears, then quotas for hunters could be higher. As a result, there could be pressure down the line to move to a more liberal estimator that could allow Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho to sell more bear hunting licenses.
By not ensuring consistency in population estimates, wrote Judge Christensen, "the Service illegally negotiated away its obligation to apply the best available science in order to reach an accommodation with the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana."
He also said the Service erred greatly by relying on two studies to support a finding that the ecosystem's bears would remain genetically healthy under the conservation plan.
"... the Service's reliance is illogical, as both studies conclude that the longterm health of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly depends on the introduction of new genetic material," the judge wrote.
"By refusing to analyze the legal and functional impact of delisting on other continental grizzly populations, the Service entirely failed to consider an issue of extreme importance," Judge Christensen concluded. "Moreover, the Service's analysis of the threats faced by the Greater Yellowstone grizzly segment was arbitrary and capricious."
The ruling, which sends the issue back to the Service to reconsider, was hailed by conservation groups.
“The grizzly is a big part of why the Yellowstone region remains among our nation’s last great wild places,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Preso, who argued the case. “This is a victory for the bears and for people from all walks of life who come to this region to see the grizzly in its natural place in the world.”
At the National Parks Conservation Association, Bart Melton said, “Grizzly bears that call Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks home will no longer be threatened by an aggressive hunt that was planned this fall on lands bordering the national parks, thanks to the court’s ruling."
"The Department of the Interior can now go back to the drawing board to hopefully consider what research, such as the long-term impacts of climate change on the population, must be considered to ensure a healthy long-term future for Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzlies,” he added.
In August 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service removed the Yellowstone-region grizzly bear population from the federal endangered and threatened species list, even though the area’s grizzly population has suffered high levels of human-caused deaths in recent years.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.


National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
The hunt was already planned? Pretty quick on the trigger, those 'conservationists'.
Such an Awesome Victory for #399 and her Clan!! I was raised in the Montana mountains, treasure what God created for mankind to appreciate, enjoy, respect and am overjoyed that she and her species can continue to roam in safety and peace.
I'm not going to weigh in on if this was a good decision or not since I am not familiar with Chao2 and haven't seen the studies.
I am curious though, has an animal has ever been removed from the endangered list without a court battle? If there aren't clear population goals for every species on this list there should be. Too much time and money is spent on lawyers and courts.
I don't like the fact that I have become so jaded that I now look at these environmental groups as either thinly veiled anti hunting groups or groups which are more concerned with keeping themselves in the news and collecting donations than actual conservation.
It would be refreshing to read about one of these groups successes. Success being we now have a healthy population, we no longer need the protections of the ESA and populations are healthy enough that hunters can also enjoy their sport.
Perhaps that has happened in the past but if so I missed it.
Yes. The bald eagle. However, even with ESA delisting, it's still not legal to hunt bald eagles.
However, this isn't strictly about being removed from the endangered species list but of a distinct, local population.
Or the pro hunting groups as anti-environment? The same argument, by the same logic, could be made.
Go Bears!
Almost y_p_w ! That said, I'll say that from what I could gather it was far less contentious although I think it took close to 10 years from the time it was proposed to actual delisting which likely had something to do with it. I'm not opposed to protections, I am opposed to lengthy and costly court battles over everything.
"On January 5, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Audubon Society brought suit against the Service, Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, CV 07-0038-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz.), challenging the Service's 90-day finding that the Sonoran Desert population did not qualify as a DPS, and further challenging the Service's 90-day finding that the Sonoran Desert population should not be up-listed to endangered Start Printed Page 37347status. That suit is still pending."
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/09/07-4302/endangered-...