MISSOULA, Mont. – Conservation groups are challenging in court the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to strip Yellowstone grizzly bears of endangered species protection.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Missoula and says Fish and Wildlife's decision to take grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem off the endangered species list is based on flawed science and undermines the bears' continuing recovery.

Tim Preso, an attorney in Montana for Earthjustice, says now is not the time for the bears to lose crucial federal protections and be turned over to the states.

"Our basic point is this is not the time to declare victory and subject bears to less protection and specifically to subject them to the threat of state-sponsored trophy hunting in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, which is something that the states are actively planning for," Preso stresses.

When he announced the decision in July, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke hailed the lifting of protections as a sign of "one of America's great conservation successes."

Under new management, states are required to maintain a "stable population," defined as between 600 and about 750 bears within the Yellowstone ecosystem.

Estimates for 2016 showed there were about 690 bears in that area, and conservation groups are worried that if those numbers dwindle to 600, it could take years for the slow-reproducing animals to rebound.

Barrie Gilbert, a retired conservation biologist who studied grizzlies for decades, says it is hard to know the actual number of bears.

"It's still very difficult to tell what the population is doing,” he states. “They're one of the hardest species to determine trends in the numbers, and I don't think people have the realization of how uncertain the results are from those kinds of studies."

Gilbert points out the bears still face a lot of threats, such as a reduction in food sources, including whitebark pine and cutthroat trout. He says opening hunting season would be disastrous for the population and refutes the claim that bears have actually made much of a comeback.

"Of course, if you give them protection, they're going to grow, but that doesn't mean that they're doing especially well,” he states. “They're just returning to where they had been before they were destroyed in such large numbers in the '70s."





get more stories like this via email

A federal court in Montana has held a hearing more than two years after a coalition of environmental advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service over expanding cattle grazing in the Paradise Valley, part of the Custer Gallatin National Forest.

The coalition, which includes Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Western Watersheds Project, sued the agencies for extending the cattle grazing season by a month on nearly 1,400 acres of forest land.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the plan will mean more interactions between young, unattended cattle and grizzly bears, which would not end well for either one.

"Putting calves out a month early when they're very small just provides a 'fast food snack' for a grizzly bear," Garrity pointed out. "A small calf makes an easy target for a grizzly bear. They can't defend themselves. They're not very big."

Garrity noted ranchers then complain about bear activity to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which traps and kills the grizzlies. The Forest Service said the new policy does not increase grazing because it is counted by plots of land rather than acreage.

Garrity pointed out groups are working to restore the grizzly bear, which is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. He added the Forest Service is not doing its part to help achieve balance.

"There's about a thousand grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem," Garrity reported. "There's hundreds of thousand of cattle. We don't have a shortage of cattle in this country but grizzly bears are threatened with extinction."

The federal judge could overturn the new grazing rules or order a complete environmental review.

From Little Red Riding Hood to the Halloween thriller "Wolf Man," stories often paint wolves as scary creatures but conservationists argued it is the wrong view.

Most gray wolves across the contiguous U.S. are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. An exception includes the Northern Rocky Mountain population in parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, where states are in charge of managing wolf populations.

Eric Clewis, senior Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, said wolves have proved polarizing in recent years but they do not need to be.

"The preferred outlook really is just wolves as a native wildlife species on the landscape, rather than treating it as either this pure icon of wilderness or this just bloodthirsty animal that's out there trying to reduce elk or deer populations or decimate livestock," Clewis urged.

The gray wolf was one of the first species listed under the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act, when he said the population was "pretty much wiped out." He believes people should "take pride" in the recovery of the wolves so far.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees endangered species, announced a first-ever National Recovery Plan for the species, with an expected completion date at the end of next year. The agency said in a news release it plans to continue to work with tribes and states to "craft enduring solutions."

Clewis argued recent actions by state agencies have been misguided.

"We've had a whole suite of bills passed in all three states that are aimed more at reducing the wolf population than actually managing it based on any biological justification or recent science," Clewis explained.

The Fish and Wildlife Service noted Idaho and Montana had recently passed laws "designed to substantially reduce" the wolf populations there, "using means and measures that are at odds with modern professional wildlife management."

"The Creature from the Black Lagoon" is a scary story told around Halloween, but conservationists say the real danger in Georgia's swamps is how humans mistreat the wetlands.

The group Defenders of Wildlife is launching its "Real Scary Movies" campaign to show how pollution, overuse and habitat loss are the real danger to places such as the iconic Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.

Christian Hunt, a senior federal lands policy analyst for Defenders of Wildlife, said while the swamp's alligators, snakes and other creatures can be scary, humans remain the wetland's biggest threat.

"The true threat is how people manage wetlands. It's through pollution, mining, or the draining and conversion of wetlands and swamps. The only horror, the only creature, if you will, is our treatment of the places we vilify," he said.

October 13 through 19 is also National Wildlife Refuge Week, a time to visit America's network of lands and waters that conserve and protect our wildlife heritage. During this time, entrance fees to many refuges will be waived.

The Okefenokee refuge is home to hundreds of species, many listed as threatened or endangered. Hunt said nearby operations such as power plants and other industries can cause damage through pollution, mining, or draining swamps.

"Frankly, many people are scared of wilderness," he explained. "They're scared of the wild, and they create villains, such as, say, the creature of the Black Lagoon, to rationalize that fear."

Hunt added groups such as Defenders of Wildlife are working to preserve refuges like the Okefenokee, and says if those lands are damaged or destroyed, they might be gone for good.

"They protect some of the last vestiges of wilderness, particularly in the Southeast. It's hard to quantify what would be lost if we were to lose these places, but the loss would certainly be immense," he contended.