A federal judge has reinstated endangered species protections for grizzly bears in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, ending any chance of a hunt this year — and possibly for years to come.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
The Powell Tribune has expanded its online content. To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free web account by clicking here.
If you already have a web account, but need to reset it, you can do so by clicking here.
If you would like to purchase a subscription click here.
Please log in to continue |
|
A federal judge has reinstated endangered species protections for grizzly bears in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, ending any chance of a hunt this year — and possibly for years to come.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen ruled Monday that federal wildlife managers acted illegally and illogically when they delisted the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s grizzly bears last year.
At the outset of his 48-page order, Christensen said he knows many people have strong feelings about grizzly bears, “from ranchers and big game hunters to conservationists and animal rights activists.”
Many of those strong feelings were expressed immediately after the judge issued his decision — with reactions ranging from outrage to joy — but Christensen stressed that he was only ruling on the law.
“Although this order may have impacts throughout grizzly country and beyond, this case is not about the ethics of hunting, and it is not about solving human- or livestock-grizzly conflicts as a practical or philosophical matter,” Christensen wrote.
The judge said his only concern was to answer a yes or no question: Did the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “exceed its legal authority” in delisting the Yellowstone area’s grizzly bears?
Christensen said they did, in three different ways.
First, he said Fish and Wildlife officials failed to adequately consider how fewer protections for grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would impact other pockets of the species across the rest of the continental U.S.
“The Service does not have unbridled discretion to draw boundaries around every potentially healthy population of a listed species without considering how that boundary will affect the members of the species on either side of it,” Christensen wrote.
Second, Judge Christensen said Fish and Wildlife “illegally negotiated” a deal with Wyoming, Montana and Idaho officials about the way they estimate the grizzly bear population. The agency initially said that, if scientists start using a different model for estimating the number of grizzlies, the old numbers would be “recalibrated” to be an apples-to-apples comparison to the new numbers; that way, a switch to a less conservative model wouldn’t make it look like there was a sudden surge in bears.
However, the provision about recalibration was eventually dropped from the plan “in response to political pressure” from state officials, Christensen said, citing internal government emails made a part of the court record. (The government said the emails had been misconstrued.)
“Rather than maintain heightened protections in the face of a recognized threat to the health of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly, the Service accepted a ‘compromise’ that was in effect a capitulation,” Christensen wrote, adding later, “All available evidence demonstrates that the Service made its decision not on the basis of science or the law but solely in reaction to the states’ hardline position on recalibration.”
Finally, he said the Fish and Wildlife Service’s final rule didn’t include enough of a commitment to ensuring that the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population remains genetically diverse. He faulted the Fish and Wildlife Service for saying that it would only bring in (“translocate”) grizzlies from other ecosystems as a last resort — if there are signs that genetic diversity among the Yellowstone area’s bears is dropping.
“In short, the Service has failed to demonstrate that genetic diversity within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, long-recognized as a threat to the Greater Yellowstone grizzly's continued survival, has become a non-issue,” Christensen wrote.
The judge, who presides in Missoula, Montana, had temporarily halted planned grizzly hunts in Wyoming and Idaho in late August while he worked on his ruling. (Montana had decided to forgo a hunt this year.) Monday’s order from Christensen was not particularly surprising: In his earlier, temporary injunctions, the judge hinted that he would ultimately rule in favor of the environmental groups and Native American tribes who challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to delist the Yellowstone ecosystem’s bears.
Whether they expected it or not, Wyoming officials expressed disappointment with Monday’s ruling.