ADWA ACTION ALERT

Join Our Online Community Receive action alerts, tips, news and special offers via e-mail.

Court Rejects Yellowstone Grizzly Removal from Endangered Species List

The U.S. District Court in Montana has ruled the Yellowstone Grizzly bear population must be placed back on the Endangered Species list. This decision not only impacts the hunting of grizzlies, but may represent a precedent making it difficult to delist any species once placed under federal protection even if their populations have recovered.

The decision, issued by Judge Donald Molloy, renewed federal protection of the Yellowstone Grizzly under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This means that state management of the grizzly populations will not be allowed to continue and that hunting will have to stop until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as well as individual states, addresses several key issues raised by the Judge. This is despite the fact that the bear population has reached approximately 600. At this number, many biologists believe that the Yellowstone ecosystem is at full saturation level with grizzlies. The target recovery population to trigger the delisting was previously set at 400-500 bears.

Among the reasons cited by Molloy for relisting the grizzlies was a determination that the FWS reliance on regulations which included state conservation plans to assure protection of the bears after being delisted, was not enforceable. According to this reasoning, states would essentially have to remain under FWS control via “enforceable” bear conservation plans despite no longer being on the ESA list.

Judge Molloy’s decision could have far reaching implications. This case may establish a precedent that could be used by anti’s in other cases concerning the delisting of healthy and sustainable animal populations, such as the Great Lakes wolves which FWS is currently working to delist.

“States have had the primary responsibility of wildlife management for more than 100 years, producing more abundant wildlife than ever before. We are disappointed this decision does not recognize the job the states have done,” states Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (USSAF) vice president for government affairs. “The decision effectively means that species can gain federal protection when needed, but can never be returned to state control regardless of successful rehabilitation.”

The case was initiated when several anti-hunting and environmental organizations filed suit against the FWS. The plaintiffs include the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Biological Diversity. Given sportsmen’s’ concerns that the suit would prevent states from resuming rightful control of healthy wildlife populations, the USSAF filed legal briefs supporting the FWS.

As of press time, no decision has been made by FWS as to whether it will appeal this decision.