Anyone else see this?
- Thread starter The Hedgehog
- Start date
Nick87
Well-known member
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,236
In before the lock
BuzzH
Well-known member
Funny to hear the defying science mantra when it's convenient.
Hey Greg how do you feel about climate science?
As to the law, not much better.
Hey Greg, how do you feel about AP grazing bison on BLM leases? Or maybe the laws on assault? Trapping laws mean anything?
The other canned complaints have zero to do with grizzly bears, but it is a good distraction.
Hey Greg how do you feel about climate science?
As to the law, not much better.
Hey Greg, how do you feel about AP grazing bison on BLM leases? Or maybe the laws on assault? Trapping laws mean anything?
The other canned complaints have zero to do with grizzly bears, but it is a good distraction.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
He looks angry.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Performative political art at its finest.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
The “evolution” of scientific politics. 
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Wonder if it will just be resolved via a rider on some congressional bill like wolves were.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,870
FWP director was well spoken. Greg looked ready to meet a reporter again 
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,020
It’s choke slam time!!!!FWP director was well spoken. Greg looked ready to meet a reporter again
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,870
When a reporter mentions bear 399 to greggy
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,236
Attachments
BuzzH
Well-known member
I was thinking the same thing. I don't think those anger management classes took very well.FWP director was well spoken. Greg looked ready to meet a reporter again
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,870
What options exist? Is this something they CAN rollback?
@BuzzH - you probably know better than anyone what could/will happen...
@BuzzH - you probably know better than anyone what could/will happen...
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,701
On the subject of grizzly bear management and MT and other western states having satisfied the requirements for federal delisting, GG isn’t wrong.
I might not agree with some of the his other policies and decisions but he’s right that MT deserves to have management oversight of grizzlies.
I might not agree with some of the his other policies and decisions but he’s right that MT deserves to have management oversight of grizzlies.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I honestly think @Nameless Range has it right.
Probably on the back burner though, we have a Gulf to rename.
ismith
Well-known member
Both sides are differently abled on this one.
Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 462
A more measured piece:
minnesotareformer.com
Note the following:
"The administration, however, has a record of favoring loosened protections for wolves. Biden initially kept in place a Trump-era change that removed Endangered Species Act protections for wolves across most of the U.S. That change was ultimately reversed by a federal court in 2022.
Biden’s Department of Justice subsequently asked a federal appeals court in September to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves.
“The ESA (Endangered Species Act) is clear: its goal is to prevent extinction, not to restore species to their pre-western settlement numbers and range,” attorneys with the Department of Justice wrote in that petition.
In 2020, the Trump administration stripped ESA protections for most gray wolves in the U.S. Among other things, that ruling allowed the state of Wisconsin to allow a wolf hunt in February 2021. Hunters subsequently shot far more wolves than allowed by the state’s quota in a matter of days.
Conservationists point to that incident as a warning sign of what could happen if the fate of wolves is left up to the states, as the hunting groups are advocating. "
I don't have a crystal ball or direct inside knowledge into the Feds thoughts, but my assumption is they didn't want to bow to a political pressured solution but prefer to let the proper course play out.
Which--while it's not happening as fast as some want--is smart IMO. As the article points out--wolves end right back with full protection if you rush things. I have pointed out before how badly WI screwed us all over by their actions when Trump gave them the chance.
Article doesn't say this but I will--both the law and courts require some assurance a state won't drive a recovered species right back to needing full protections. That has been the problem.
The science showing they are recovered in many places is sound yes--the will and intent to keep them there is what has this species battered back and forth in the courts. More of the key players want to delist them than you think--it's hard to get there when both sides take such extremes and those extremes show up in some states actions.
Biden administration upholds federal protections for wolves • Minnesota Reformer
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife service has denied two petitions from hunting advocacy groups to reduce federal protections for gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. The petitions asked the agency to recognize wolves in western Great Lakes states, including Minnesota, as a distinct...
minnesotareformer.com
Note the following:
"The administration, however, has a record of favoring loosened protections for wolves. Biden initially kept in place a Trump-era change that removed Endangered Species Act protections for wolves across most of the U.S. That change was ultimately reversed by a federal court in 2022.
Biden’s Department of Justice subsequently asked a federal appeals court in September to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves.
“The ESA (Endangered Species Act) is clear: its goal is to prevent extinction, not to restore species to their pre-western settlement numbers and range,” attorneys with the Department of Justice wrote in that petition.
In 2020, the Trump administration stripped ESA protections for most gray wolves in the U.S. Among other things, that ruling allowed the state of Wisconsin to allow a wolf hunt in February 2021. Hunters subsequently shot far more wolves than allowed by the state’s quota in a matter of days.
Conservationists point to that incident as a warning sign of what could happen if the fate of wolves is left up to the states, as the hunting groups are advocating. "
I don't have a crystal ball or direct inside knowledge into the Feds thoughts, but my assumption is they didn't want to bow to a political pressured solution but prefer to let the proper course play out.
Which--while it's not happening as fast as some want--is smart IMO. As the article points out--wolves end right back with full protection if you rush things. I have pointed out before how badly WI screwed us all over by their actions when Trump gave them the chance.
Article doesn't say this but I will--both the law and courts require some assurance a state won't drive a recovered species right back to needing full protections. That has been the problem.
The science showing they are recovered in many places is sound yes--the will and intent to keep them there is what has this species battered back and forth in the courts. More of the key players want to delist them than you think--it's hard to get there when both sides take such extremes and those extremes show up in some states actions.
jryoung
Well-known member
My post From the MT Bear Management thread:
USFWS doesn't de-list, but proposes a rule change. Given the long history of the USFWS delisting and courts relisting is this a strategic move by the USFWS to defend against the serial litigators, lip-service, or an attempt by Biden to kill the Montana way of life (according to GG)?
“This reclassification will facilitate recovery of grizzly bears and provide a stronger foundation for eventual delisting,” said Martha Williams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director. “And the proposed changes to our 4(d) rule will provide management agencies and landowners more tools and flexibility to deal with human/bear conflicts, an essential part of grizzly bear recovery.”
www.ktvh.com
USFWS doesn't de-list, but proposes a rule change. Given the long history of the USFWS delisting and courts relisting is this a strategic move by the USFWS to defend against the serial litigators, lip-service, or an attempt by Biden to kill the Montana way of life (according to GG)?
“This reclassification will facilitate recovery of grizzly bears and provide a stronger foundation for eventual delisting,” said Martha Williams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director. “And the proposed changes to our 4(d) rule will provide management agencies and landowners more tools and flexibility to deal with human/bear conflicts, an essential part of grizzly bear recovery.”
Feds deny Montana petition to delist grizzly bears, propose new rule on populations
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has denied Montana and Wyoming’s petition to delist grizzly bears in the Greater Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Litigation would have been filed on this within minutes after the announcement of any delisting. Ironically, the litigators' argument would have been USFWS not following the science, whereas now it is USFWS is following the science. USFWS seems to have changed scope so all lower 48 bears are managed as a single population. Montana is complaining about it, but this is actually a good thing because part of the thing delisting has had to overcome is the separation of Northern Continent bears (Glacier NP) from Greater Yellowstone bears.
Similar threads
