Wildlife and People

Grizzlies Relisted Due to Global Warming

The US Fish and Wildlife Service put grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park back on the threatened species list on March 26th. The USFWS was forced to do so by a court decision that said global warming is causing the bears to go extinct.

Yellowstone grizzlies were first listed as endangered in 1975 when 200 bears roamed the park and surrounding areas. After $20 million was spent to recover the species, over 600 bears in Yellowstone constituted the densest population in North America and grizzlies had spread throughout the Northern Rockies.

The USFWS delisted Yellowstone grizzlies in 2007, as required under the Endangered Species Act, because determination was made that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was no longer an endangered or threatened population.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition brought suit, contending that whitebark pine was declining due to global warming, that grizzlies are dependent on whitebark pine nuts, and that therefore the bears were still endangered and likely to go extinct.

All those contentions are completely bogus, yet U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled last September that, “There is a connection between whitebark pine and grizzly survival” [here].

Judge Molloy is the same judge who put Northern Rocky Mountain wolves back on the endangered species list because he determined the wolves capacity for “genetic exchange” was inadequate [here].

Judge Molloy thinks he is a wildlife biologist, but his theories are completely crackers. Judges who pretend to be scientists, who ignore the overwhelming testimony of real scientists and dream up their own crackpot theories, are a strain and burden to the American judicial system.

In this case Judge Molloy didn’t base his ruling on his pet “genetic exchange” theory, but instead ruled that “climate change” was going to make the bears go extinct. This is despite the fact that the grizzly bear population has grown steadily over the last 35 years, a period when climate alarmists claim we have experienced global warming.

Note: No one can prove that the climate anywhere has “changed”. No one can prove that it is going to. The entire global warming theory is a hoax and a scam.

But even if the climate changes, it will not affect grizzly bears who once roamed regions far to the south of Yellowstone. Heck, grizzly bears once roamed California where they are the Official State Animal. Grizzly bears are not restricted ecologically to any particular climate.

Nor are whitebark pine nuts the principal food of grizzly bears. They are a minor snack, and in most places where grizzly bears live there are no whitebark pine trees at all!

Nor are whitebark pines dying out, nor will they even if the climate changes, which it is not going to.

The entire theory is complete eco-babble nonsense and bogosity. But Judge Molloy is all-powerful, no matter how loony he his. The system is truly broken when lunatics run the asylum, and that is exactly the case in America today. Justice is not only blind, she is mad as a hatter.

Extracts from the grizzly bear relisiting Final Rule follow:

Federal Register: March 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 58)
Rules and Regulations, Page 14496-14498, [here]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Protections for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Compliance With Court Order

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that has the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and surrounding area. This rule corrects the grizzly bear listing to reinstate the listing of grizzly bears in the GYA. This final rule also takes administrative action to correct two associated special rules.

DATES: This action is effective March 26, 2010. However, the court order had legal effect immediately upon being filed on September 21, 2009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 29, 2007, we announced the establishment of a distinct population segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) for the GYA and surrounding area and removed this DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (72 FR 14866). In that rule, we determined that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was no longer an endangered or threatened population pursuant to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Robust population growth, coupled with State and Federal cooperation to manage mortality and habitat, widespread public support for grizzly bear recovery, and the development of regulatory mechanisms, brought the Yellowstone grizzly bear population to the point where making a change to its status was appropriate.

Subsequently, three lawsuits challenging our decision were filed in Federal courts in Boise, Idaho, and in Missoula, Montana. Legal briefings in these cases were completed in 2008.

In the Montana case, the plaintiff presented four claims including: (1) The regulatory mechanisms to protect the grizzly once it is delisted are inadequate; (2) the Service did not adequately consider the impacts of global warming and other factors on whitebark pine nuts, a grizzly food source; (3) the population is unacceptably small and dependent on translocation of outside animals for genetic diversity; and (4) the Service did not properly consider whether the grizzlies were recovered across a significant portion of their range.

On September 21, 2009, the Montana District Court issued an order in which plaintiffs prevailed on the first and second counts, while the United States prevailed on the third and fourth counts. The court’s order vacated the delisting and remanded it to the Service. Thus, this final rule is required to correct the Yellowstone grizzly bear population’s listing status.

The United States is considering whether to appeal this decision. Regardless, this final rule is necessary because this process, should we move forward with an appeal, would likely take several years to complete. …