"The problem is the ESA is one of the most important conservation laws ever passed. When it is misapplied, such as here, it raises the furor to dismantle or significantly diminish the ESA which could potentially do much harm to future species in desperate need of our protection.
In other words, we could potentially throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Grizzly"
There is another side to that coin. It could be viewed in the light of saying that those who are filing these frivolous lawsuits against valid hunts, and therefore basically militarizing the ESA for their own agenda, may cause harm to a whole bunch more species in their quest to save a few grizzly bears that no longer appear to be a threatened species. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess.
I understand what you are saying, Grizz. I guess my question becomes...if this is how the ESA is going to be used by anti-hunters, what should hunters and states that believe these species are no longer threatened do? Just take it and continue to leave grizzly bears unchecked?