Skip to comments.U.S. wildlife managers urge lifting Yellowstone grizzly protections
Posted on 12/12/2013 4:51:01 PM PST by george76
Yellowstone's grizzlies, now classified as a threatened species, were briefly removed from protected status by the federal government in 2007, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared that the outsized, hump-shouldered bears had made a healthy comeback.
At the time, the number of grizzlies in the region had exceeded the government's recovery goal of 500 bears, the government said.
But conservationists successfully challenged the de-listing in court, arguing that the government discounted climate changes
On Wednesday, members of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee sought to reverse that decision, recommending a new de-listing after reviewing a report suggesting Yellowstone's bears can be sustained by berries and a multitude of other food sources.
The panel estimated the grizzly population in and around Yellowstone, which spans parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, has now climbed to about 600 bears.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Griz and wolves! Amazing animals, grizzlies! Wolves, on the other hand, should be eradicated....again!
I have mixed thoughts on bringing back the wolves and grizzlies.
Ideally, it seems good to have them in the wild-lands. Realistically, it means for all intents and purposes you’re making an area of the wild non-accessible to humans.
Perhaps my thoughts are tunnel vision here, but I don’t like seeing areas of our nation crafted to keep humans out.
Our forefathers were a hell of a lot smarter than the enviro-nazis who are stuck on stupid.
Heh. In other words, maybe the political regulator folks are frightened about tourist revenues going down because of bears eating tourists. There are probably many more than 600 of those creatures in the area, too.
Why would they need a special protected status? Hunting in a Nat. Park is illegal.
The introduction of the much larger Canadian timber wolves and Grizzlies are decimating much of the native elk , deer, moose, sheep ... populations.
Plus the wolves were to be limited to a small number and to a limited range. Both promises were / are ignored.
and the hydatid disease due to Echinococcosis granulosus tape worms
The special protected .. often leave the park, then kill livestock [ and humans next ? ]
Hilarious... Country folk have a great way of simplifying the issues don’t they.
Doesn’t sound good on a number of levels here.
Thanks for making the points.
Reduce the numbers of grizzlies by delisting them and having limited numbers of hunting permits issued for them.
Pay a bounty on wolves as well as a year round open season.
More climate change lies. The whitebark pine is declining due to introduced disease and mountain pine beetle infestation.
Environazis always lie.
Thanks for the Ping, George!
I agree. I believe that every block of Washington D.C. should have at least one grizzly and two wolves.
Just curious. Are you saying that wild critters have no right to have any habitat all their own, i.e. being able to escape from people?
That doesn’t answer my question.
The White bark pine. How much food does the grizzly get from a White Bark Pine. I’d say about as much as the ocean level has risen over the last 100 years.
OK. What does that have to do with anything?
LOL. I'll vote for that, with the rider that if any of those critters (or their prey) wanders North into Pennsylvania, we can have open season on them with no bag limits. ;~))
As a side note, and something that will absolutely horrify PETA...
Just today, the Pennsylvania House approved a $25 bounty on coyotes
Putting the profit motive to work. It works wonders.
HARRISBURG Hunters could reap a $25 bounty for killing a coyote under a bill approved Wednesday by House lawmakers.
Licensed hunters and furtakers can kill an unlimited number of coyotes year-round under current law. But this legislation authorizes the Pennsylvania Game Commission to establish a coyote control program to give licensed hunters and furtakers a financial incentive to hunt and kill coyotes. The commission would set the rules to run the bounty program.
Go somewhere else with smaller bears. Like the sierras black bears
They (wolves and grizzlies) were there first. Probably important for keeping other critters. (Not us). In check
Still big animals are scary. Been around plenty of em
Grizzs and Polaris are not to be messed with
” Are you saying that wild critters have no right to have any habitat all their own, i.e. being able to escape from people? “
Woof, WOOF - Straw Dog time.
Large bodied predators were once in fear for their lived because “they learned to their great regret that nearly every man and boy carried a rifle”.
When gunpowder speaks, beasts obey.
It is cruelly deceptive to allow large bodied predators to not have a mortal fear of man. When they do, they leave us alone - man and beast can then occupy the same habitat only after the issue of who is the apex predator is established beyond doubt.
I have a dream that one day naked Grizzly and Wolf environmental activists will be herded into those wildlife sanctuaries and abandoned wearing nothing but a coat of bacon grease.
The decline of the White Bark Pine due to Climate Change was used by the Environmentalists to sway the judge’s ruling. Rise in sea levels was also used to try and sway some people.
I understood that from the get go. It still has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.
Environazis always lie.
Thanks for the Ping
Problem solved... :-)
Grizzlies, now classified as a threatened species, can not be hunted anywhere.
If the grizzlies were no longer classified as a threatened species, then the states could issue hunting permits on state or private land outside of the national park.
I’m not sure if you are aware of it, but the Left is all for loping off access to a lot of public land because humans damage it.
I believe nature was put there for us to enjoy. While I do like the idea of animals having access, if it comes to a choice, I’ll opt for humans first in the lower 48. In Canada or Alaska, I believe the areas are so sparsely populated that the animals come first.
It is not a straw man question, though that’s how you chose to address it. It is beside the point to argue that man should make animals fear him since I am simply bringing up the issue of whether there should be places on this earth where animals can live unmolested by man.
You are arguing that if these animals are not taught their lesson that they’ll then come attack them. No, they won’t if sufficient barriers (such as separation by hundreds of miles) are erected, neither of them would meet.
This is something for the locals to work out. I’m not trying to tell them what to do. I’m merely making my thoughts known.
If the locals are happy having grizzlies in those areas, then I’m all for it. I shouldn’t be able to run half-way across the nation telling others what to do.
This is where we really disagree and I see no way to reconcile our points of view.
I maintain that not everything in this world was created for human's support and/or pleasure. Some things have their own intrinsic value.
That said, I will close by stating the obvious: we see things very, very differently.
P.S. I am aware of what the Left is up to; I have noted this for a long time.
Okay. I appreciate the note of difference. Perhaps you’re right. I can only state how I see it at the present time.
Well, yeah, but it turns out more humans are killed by black bears, and they are more likely to be aggressive.
That was basically my point in reverse. If the grizzlies were no longer classified as a threatened species they still could not be hunted in Yellowstone Nat. Park.
On the serious side, taking a wile coyote’s or wolf’s “manhood” away would make it’s life miserable.
Well, yeah! All those fat human tourists they,ve been eating are really making them multiply.
they have bow and arrow seasons for these two animals in the great northwest.
thing is as a hunter ouut during bow season you are forbidden from carrying a gun.
you best be a REAL good shot with very large balls if you go out bow hunting for griz.
And thank you for the nice note. It’s good to find—again—that we Freepers do not necessarily have to express hostility while disagreeing on an issue.
Having once been a member of the Florida Sierra club’s Florida Executive Commitee (FLEXCOM) I can claim to have been a real, live, duped, FLEXCOMMIE.
The argument you are making is not possible, as we are not going to devote huge areas to “critical habitat” for any critter. The very idea of critical habitat was abused and perverted from a simple scientific concept to an excuse to communize America. Trust me on this point, as I was there and heard/participated in the discussions - they are commies and they do want to destroy American capitalism and American private property.
Let gunpowder induce mortal fear of man and both can “just get along’.’
I completely forgot to mention that thanks to President Bush, Americans can once again be armed in National Parks - according to the laws of the state in which the Park is located. Same for National Forests.
Soon, some grizzly or wolf will learn the lessons its ancestors once knew - never, never, Ever approach anything on two feet.
I suggest investing in Duct Tape stock - libtards will be buying it wholesale to keep their heads from popping open as soon as they realize the hated Bush made it both possible and legal to use gunpowder to defend ones self against a pampered predator.
Who is the “chimp” now, Libtards?
Your ideal has a mythical basis.The real mistake that government "managers" made was to remove the true apex predator and keystone species in that system: The American Indian. There is nothing large predators can do that people cannot.
I resent these NGO Progressive meddlers calling themselves "conservationists"--the land is conserved for human beings. These are just Marxists who hate people, worship animals instead of God and take ever more money from the oligarchs who also hate people to make those people as miserable as possible.
I am. They are useful or they are not. The system was under anthropogenic management when white explorers arrived and distorted it to fit their 18th Century idea of "nature" as a self-optimizing system containing no people. It doesn't work.
Further, to confer "rights" to anything other than people is to set oneself up to be the guarantor of those rights exclusive against any competing claim. Who made you king? I promise you, there were fewer grizzlies there before European crowd diseases infested that area than there are today. If you don't believe that, then what happened to the dire wolf or the short-faced bear?
After being in North America for 22 glacial cycles, they suddenly disappeared soon after Clovis Man invaded the continent.
Humans probably introduced C. lupus after the Pleistocene when they brought bison over the Bering Land Bridge to the North American continent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.