BigHornRam
Well-known member
Groups aim to block delisting
By BRODIE FARQUHAR
Star-Tribune correspondent Friday, March 23, 2007
Without revealing their specific legal strategies, representatives of some conservation groups made it clear Thursday that they'll turn to the courts in an attempt to prevent removal of federal protection for grizzly bears.
While some conservationists said delisting is premature, others said they support the move.
Tim Preso, a Bozeman, Mont.-based attorney for the environmental group EarthJustice, noted that the organization has detailed its objections to grizzly delisting in a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“If (the agency) has not responded to the concerns raised in our letter, then yes, we will sue," Preso said.
The federal government announced Thursday a final rule to remove the Yellowstone grizzly bear from Endangered Species Act protection will take effect in 37 days -- 30 days after it's published in the Federal Register.
According to Doug Honnold, lead attorney for EarthJustice's Bozeman office, all that has happened is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has released a press release about delisting of the grizzly -- not the official document that would guide federal and state agencies. That makes it difficult to respond to the delisting plan, he said.
"It makes it easy to manipulate the press," he said.
Assuming that the Fish and Wildlife Service has not responded to EarthJustice concerns, the group will ask federal courts to declare the delisting plan invalid and send it back so the agency can respond to EarthJustice's concerns, Honnold said.
The group could also ask a judge to block delisting until the lawsuit is resolved.
Preso said he would be astonished if the federal agency took EarthJustice criticisms to heart, based on previous experience.
The broad complaints by conservation groups and scientists represented by EarthJustice include:
* Grizzly bear habitat currently used is not 100 percent protected -- nearly 40 percent of lands used by grizzlies today in the Yellowstone ecosystem are outside of the designated recovery area. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service counts the bears outside of the protected area to conclude that the population meets recovery levels, the agency has not taken steps to ensure the bears' viability in those areas after delisting.
* Whitebark pine trees, a vital food source for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem, are imperiled by blister rust and pine beetles -- so much, said Preso, that there is a tight correlation between bad whitebark pine nut years and grizzly mortality, and between good whitebark pine nut years and healthy cubs.
* U.S. Forest Service plans are now “aspirational rather than prescriptive,” meaning bear survivability rests “on hope and a prayer,” Preso said.
* Public comments on the delisting proposal suggest that the agency underestimates hostility toward grizzly bears that could threaten their survival after federal protection is removed. In Wyoming, four counties -- Park, Fremont, Sublette, and Lincoln -- have passed ordinances and resolutions to express their intolerance of grizzly bears within their borders.
* Federal and state monitoring expenses will be more than $3 million per year under the delisting plan, yet there is no assurance the federal or state wildlife agencies will be able to come up with adequate funding. “Without enough money, the delisting plan is just words on paper," Preso said.
* Delisting rescinds many protections for bear habitat, including limitations on road-building, loggin, and oil and gas development in much of the public lands currently used by grizzlies.
Not every conservation group or wildlife biologist takes a dim view of grizzly bear delisting, although Sterling Miller, a grizzly bear biologist with the National Wildlife Federation, does share concerns about the money issue.
“The state management plans are adequate if fully implemented and adequately funded,” Miller said. However, he noted that no one has a crystal ball that guarantees funding into the future.
Miller warned that state agencies in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana might get frustrated and pull funding if their management plans are forestalled by a lawsuit. Still, Miller said the basic management package forged by the federal and state wildlife agencies “is pretty darn good and is likely to survive litigation.”
Miller said he and the National Wildlife Federation “will hold the agencies’ feet to the fire” on full implementation and funding of the grizzly bear management plan. The group has been working with livestock producers where there’s the greatest potential for conflict between the bears and livestock, paying ranchers to voluntarily retire grazing allotments.
"We’ve retired 25 (grazing) allotments in the past five years, representing 500,000 acres,” she said.
By BRODIE FARQUHAR
Star-Tribune correspondent Friday, March 23, 2007
Without revealing their specific legal strategies, representatives of some conservation groups made it clear Thursday that they'll turn to the courts in an attempt to prevent removal of federal protection for grizzly bears.
While some conservationists said delisting is premature, others said they support the move.
Tim Preso, a Bozeman, Mont.-based attorney for the environmental group EarthJustice, noted that the organization has detailed its objections to grizzly delisting in a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“If (the agency) has not responded to the concerns raised in our letter, then yes, we will sue," Preso said.
The federal government announced Thursday a final rule to remove the Yellowstone grizzly bear from Endangered Species Act protection will take effect in 37 days -- 30 days after it's published in the Federal Register.
According to Doug Honnold, lead attorney for EarthJustice's Bozeman office, all that has happened is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has released a press release about delisting of the grizzly -- not the official document that would guide federal and state agencies. That makes it difficult to respond to the delisting plan, he said.
"It makes it easy to manipulate the press," he said.
Assuming that the Fish and Wildlife Service has not responded to EarthJustice concerns, the group will ask federal courts to declare the delisting plan invalid and send it back so the agency can respond to EarthJustice's concerns, Honnold said.
The group could also ask a judge to block delisting until the lawsuit is resolved.
Preso said he would be astonished if the federal agency took EarthJustice criticisms to heart, based on previous experience.
The broad complaints by conservation groups and scientists represented by EarthJustice include:
* Grizzly bear habitat currently used is not 100 percent protected -- nearly 40 percent of lands used by grizzlies today in the Yellowstone ecosystem are outside of the designated recovery area. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service counts the bears outside of the protected area to conclude that the population meets recovery levels, the agency has not taken steps to ensure the bears' viability in those areas after delisting.
* Whitebark pine trees, a vital food source for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem, are imperiled by blister rust and pine beetles -- so much, said Preso, that there is a tight correlation between bad whitebark pine nut years and grizzly mortality, and between good whitebark pine nut years and healthy cubs.
* U.S. Forest Service plans are now “aspirational rather than prescriptive,” meaning bear survivability rests “on hope and a prayer,” Preso said.
* Public comments on the delisting proposal suggest that the agency underestimates hostility toward grizzly bears that could threaten their survival after federal protection is removed. In Wyoming, four counties -- Park, Fremont, Sublette, and Lincoln -- have passed ordinances and resolutions to express their intolerance of grizzly bears within their borders.
* Federal and state monitoring expenses will be more than $3 million per year under the delisting plan, yet there is no assurance the federal or state wildlife agencies will be able to come up with adequate funding. “Without enough money, the delisting plan is just words on paper," Preso said.
* Delisting rescinds many protections for bear habitat, including limitations on road-building, loggin, and oil and gas development in much of the public lands currently used by grizzlies.
Not every conservation group or wildlife biologist takes a dim view of grizzly bear delisting, although Sterling Miller, a grizzly bear biologist with the National Wildlife Federation, does share concerns about the money issue.
“The state management plans are adequate if fully implemented and adequately funded,” Miller said. However, he noted that no one has a crystal ball that guarantees funding into the future.
Miller warned that state agencies in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana might get frustrated and pull funding if their management plans are forestalled by a lawsuit. Still, Miller said the basic management package forged by the federal and state wildlife agencies “is pretty darn good and is likely to survive litigation.”
Miller said he and the National Wildlife Federation “will hold the agencies’ feet to the fire” on full implementation and funding of the grizzly bear management plan. The group has been working with livestock producers where there’s the greatest potential for conflict between the bears and livestock, paying ranchers to voluntarily retire grazing allotments.
"We’ve retired 25 (grazing) allotments in the past five years, representing 500,000 acres,” she said.
