Grizzly bear delisting Comments needed by OCT 7th

feduptwo · Oct 5, 2016

Please take time to comment on the grizzly delisting in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. FYI we(hunters) are getting our clocks cleaned in the comments count number.
Here are my comments:
Please delist the grizzly bear from the Endangered species list. Those of us that live & recreate in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem know that the grizzly count is extremely conservative. We also know that the population is completely recovered & grizzly bears are now living in places that put people recreating in the GYE in major conflict.
Furthermore state agencies have a impeccable track record when dealing with managing "endangered or threatened" species
& I'm confident that they will manage at a level will ensure long term success in regards to grizzly populations.
Please feel free to cut these comments into the comment page but take a few moments to personalize them a little.
Comments are due by Friday OCT 7th. if the link below doesn't work Copy it right into your browser and will take you to the comment page.
www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042-5755&p=1

Sierra · Oct 5, 2016

PleaseDear · Oct 5, 2016

Thanks for the link Eric

Done

Robb

NilsFrost · Oct 5, 2016

I am a huge Leopold fan but with all due respect grizzlies are not "just" brown bears. Yes, they are the same species, but food sources in the interior Rockies are far different than all the animal [fish] protein rich diet brown bears enjoy within 80 miles of the Pacific in Canada and Alaska. I also ADAMANTLY ask that grizzlies not be referred to as "brown bears" because here in the GYE lots of black bears are brown, and if someone like you suggests there is a brown bear up the trail many will think its a blackie and be less cautious even though every bear deserves safe respect.

However GYE grizzlies reached objective numbers years ago. They aren't several times above original optimistic projections like wolves, but they have by precondition recovered. Therefore I have to ask Rik why it is he believes there are not enough of them? Wolves exponentially eclipsed QUALIFIED projections in just a few years. When it comes to grizzlies their more solitary nature made a natural comeback slower but again well above expectation. Remember, we're talking the 19,000,000+ acres of Greater Yellowstone, not the Great Plains that the sane know will never be recouped grizzly habitat. Please let us know how many you think would be "enough."

The hysteria from the no management at all school of wildlife management Leopold would be utterly disgusted with is sadly laughable. When some local "expert" shared her thoughts that the recent elk annihilation south of Jackson was just wolves making frozen dinners we were amidst incredibly warm temperatures. She didn't want to mention this was normal, natural behavior of adolescent males. Yet at the same time this was an unnatural event because it happened on a feed ground.

At the same time the man has divine dominion over nature mantra is just as sadly laughable. We need balance, and that never comes from entrenched division. The idea that there is NEVER compromise when it comes to conservation has fueled more than one conservation disaster.

mightyhunter · Oct 6, 2016

I submitted comments during the initial comment period and again for the extended 30 day comment period. I also testified at a USFWS hearing on delisting in Cody, Wyoming. The law requires that the USFWS solicit public input on the subject of delisting. It is a mere formality. The fact that many eco-elites more than sportsman will make comments is irrelevant. The comments mean very little in the process. There is nothing new brought up by individuals or groups in comments that the USFWS hasn't already considered. That includes food sources, genetic connectivity and buffer zones. The science supports delisting the grizzly bear in the GYE. The scientific reports solicited by the USFWS on the issue all generally support the delisting. In the political season of 2016, the USFWS may defer a decision until early 2017. However, they may make a decision in 2016(likely after the November election).

The USFWS would not have started the delisting process if they did not anticipate ruling for delisting. A ruling that delists the grizzly bear in the GYE is likely a forgone conclusion. What happens after that is the real problem. The ESA and the EAJA are statutes that are broken. The decision delisting the grizzly bear in the GYE will be challenged in federal district court. The states that are directly impacted by delisting will be Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Despite the fact that a delisting challenge should be brought in the federal district courts in those states, it is more than likely that the challenge will be heard in D.C. Federal District Court. The precedent has already been established for this with the recent wolf cases relisting wolves in Wyoming and in the Midwest. The eco-elite groups love to forum shop and they think they have pet judges in the D.C. District. They may be right on this issue.

So if the USFWS does delist the grizzly bear, it will be immediately challenged in the court system. A preliminary injunction or TRO would be sought by the plaintiffs in the lawsuits pending a final decision by the court system. The states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming may have a year or two of state management before that right is snatched away by a single federal district judge in D.C. The only way to circumvent the court process long term is for Congress to legislatively delist the grizzly bear and deny any judicial appeal of such a legislative decision. It won't pass grizzly delisting as "stand alone" legislation, Instead, it will try to place a delisting rider as an amendment to some unrelated legislation that has a "must pass" majority voting for it. That gives politicians the cover they need if they vote for the rider or amendment.

What I am saying is this delisting mess for the grizzly bear will likely drag on and on for years. There is too much money involved in fundraising for the eco-elite groups and sportsman's groups for the science of delisting to rule the day. This is only my opinion but I would be surprised if it went any other way.

just sayin...mh

MoGreen · Oct 6, 2016

LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-16 AT 10:23AM (MST)[p]Kudos for posting this. De-listing them is not going to stop their expansion and by the time all the legal hoopla is over with, they will be in many more areas and many more trees with be wiped out by bark beetle.

As they expand, more attacks will occur. Every time one does you, can pretty much kiss away another hundred(s) of hunters from those areas.

Many people post of this site (as well as others) asking for hunting advice in regions that have griz. And no one can ever give advice about hunting in those areas without warning about griz. Obviously, the danger is real and it is on everyone's minds when hunting in griz country.

De-listing them and allowing hunting will not make them fearful of humans unless they allow a high percentage to be harvested. I doubt that ever happens. And unless they are completely eradicated from the areas where they have started to appear then the danger will always be present. And I doubt they will ever lose their fear of humans in those areas.

So by all means - de-list them. I 100% support it. But I think it will do little good and the economic consequences will be seen soon and are probably here to stay.

I guess you could say that my support would be for far more drastic measures as I do not believe you will ever get to a point where griz and people can co-exist without problems.

---------------------
--------------------------
------------
I hunt, therefore I am.
Harvest the land.
Taking of the fallen lamb.