July 26, 2017

Department of Interior Announces Recovery and Delisting of Yellowstone Grizzly Population

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The U.S. Department of Interior announced the recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population as well as its intent to remove federal protections and return management to state agencies.

“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports the delisting of grizzly bears,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “It’s been a long time coming and we think this is the appropriate move by Secretary Zinke and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

The Yellowstone population rebounded from as few as 136 bears in 1975 to an estimated 700 today. Confirmed sightings of grizzlies are taking place in locations where they have not previously been seen for more than 100 years as they extend their range in the Northern Rockies.

“This achievement stands as one of America’s great conservation successes; the culmination of decades of hard work and dedication on the part of the state, tribal, federal and private partners,” said U.S, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “As a Montanan, I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together.”

The Yellowstone grizzly population meets all delisting criteria. These factors include not only the number and distribution of bears throughout the ecosystem, but also the quantity and quality of the habitat available and the states’ commitments to manage the population from now on in a manner that maintains its healthy and secure status.

“We do caution everybody to manage their expectations about the potential of hunting grizzly bears. The reality is there will be very minimal hunting of grizzly bears for the next several years. Those who oppose the delisting are going to try and use ‘trophy hunting’ as a major obstacle and reason not to delist grizzly bears. It’s purely rhetoric and propaganda,” added Allen.

The final rule, and the supporting documents, will publish in coming days in the Federal Register and the rule will take effect 30 days after publication.

Press Release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Partners celebrate Endangered Species Act delisting following decades of collaboration

June 22, 2017

WASHINGTON – Due to the success of conservation efforts and collaboration among a variety of stakeholders, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced today that the Yellowstone population of the grizzly bear has been recovered to the point where federal protections can be removed and overall management can be returned to the states and tribes. The population has rebounded from as few as 136 bears in 1975 to an estimated 700 today and meets all the criteria for delisting.

“As a kid who grew up in Montana, I can tell you that this is a long time coming and very good news for many communities and advocates in the Yellowstone region,” said Secretary Zinke. “This achievement stands as one of America’s great conservation successes; the culmination of decades of hard work and dedication on the part of the state, tribal, federal and private partners. As a Montanan, I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together.”

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) consists of portions of northwestern Wyoming, southwestern Montana and eastern Idaho. Grizzly bear populations outside of this DPS in the lower 48 states will be treated separately under the ESA and will continue to be protected.

The GYE grizzly bear population is one of the best studied bear populations in the world thanks to the longstanding efforts of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST). Population and habitat monitoring efforts undertaken by the IGBST indicate that GYE Grizzly Bears have more than doubled their range since the mid-1970s. They now occupy more than 22,500 square miles, an area larger than the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. Stable population numbers for grizzly bears for more than a decade also suggest that the GYE is at or near its capacity to support grizzly bears. This decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was informed by over four decades of intensive, independent scientific efforts.

The GYE grizzly bear population was determined to be recovered because multiple factors indicate it is healthy and will be sustained into the future. These factors include not only the number and distribution of bears throughout the ecosystem, but also the quantity and quality of the habitat available and the states’ commitments to manage the population from now on in a manner that maintains its healthy and secure status.

In addition to this final rule, the USFWS will also release a final supplement to the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear population. The Conservation Strategy that describes management of the grizzly bear following delisting was finalized by the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee of the IGBC in December of 2016. That document can be found here: http://igbconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/161216_Final-Conservation-Strategy_signed.pdf.

The final rule, and the supporting documents, will publish in coming days in the Federal Register and the rule will take effect 30 days after publication. More information can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php.

Press Release from House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy:

Bishop: Grizzly Delisting Process Emblematic of Need for ESA Reform

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 22, 2017

Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem will be delisted from the endangered species list. Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement:

“I commend this Administration and the Department of the Interior for delisting the grizzly bear even though it  should have been done years ago. States are far more capable of managing the grizzly population than the federal government. The time it took to get this delisting is the latest evidence that reform of ESA is sorely needed. Recovery and delisting — and responsible state management that will prevent listings in the first place — must be the goals of ESA, not lifetime sentences on the endangered list fraught with frivolous litigation.”

Background:

Grizzly bears are currently listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Delisting the species will allow states the ability to manage populations within their borders.

The grizzly bear population was originally delisted in 2007, but relisted in 20009 following litigation. In 2016, FWS proposed to delist the grizzly bear population as former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar deemed the population “unquestionably recovered” in 2012. The population has remained either steady or increasing for close to a decade.

Share

Speaking of Sharks, Grizzly Bears, Wolves, Cougars & Such

*Editor’s Note* – I am reminded of Leviticus 26: vss 14 and 22 –

“But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; …..I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.”

An article by James Beers

Question:  What do sharks, grizzly bears, wolves, cougars and similar large mammalian predators have in common?

Answer:

1.) They attack, injure and kill humans.

2.) Their presence in locations of human presence varying in density from the lightly inhabited to densely inhabited by humans is rightly controversial.

3.) They compete with humans for renewable natural resources like various marine species from seals to bass, and game animals from moose and elk to antelope utilized for human consumption and recreation like fishing and hunting.

4.) They depress human activities from bathing and biking to hiking and simple day in and day out actions of families and other residents where such animals are allowed to occur.

5.) They depress economic activities from tourism and animal husbandry to pet ownership and all the subsidiary economic activities they spawn thereby shrinking both employment opportunities and local tax revenues that are the lifeblood of both local governance and a political voice for rural residents.

6.) They destroy private property from dogs to cattle.

7.) They are “loved” by mostly urban people and little more than constant problems for rural people and others forced by governments to live with them.

8.) They are political vote fodder for central government politicians forever spending scarce dollars and implementing the laws they are forever passing to “protect” and “save” these “charismatic mega-species”.

9.) They are central-government bureaucrat’s ticket’s to more power and authority (resulting from the manipulation of regulation-writing for all the laws mentioned under # 8); more personnel and bigger budgets leading to increased career opportunities leading to larger retirements and public adulation; and they are an introduction to after-retirement opportunities with the Non-Government environmental Organizations (see # 10 below).

10.) They are the primary tools of the self-aggrandizing “environmental”, animal “rights”, and faux “conservation” lobby groups collecting millions from the general public that they use to “influence” the politicians, woo the bureaucrats, and give the urban population a false sense of doing something “good” while being “involved”.

11.) Too often the government schemes to “save” or “restore” such species are thinly-veiled hidden agendas for other campaigns from population control to gun control and further erosion of local governments and the political voice of rural people and their issues.

Now, lest you think I do not “like” or “want” such animals; I assure you I am committed to their preservation and conservation.  I say this with full recognition of the following:

1.)  These animals DO NOT belong wherever they want to be or where they simply existed 20 or 200 years ago. They belong where their negative impacts are tolerable primarily to those communities that government’s target to coexist with them.

2.)  The formal acceptance by local populations should be a prerequisite of any government protection, introductions or increases of these animals for reasons of both justice and morality.

3.)  While the “public” et al (see the foregoing #’s 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11) knowledge of words like “decreasing”, “endangered”, etc. are rudimentary at best; their rejection of terms  like “too many”, “destructive”, “dangerous”, or “necessary lethal control” are also clouded by bureaucrats, teachers, politicians, and the influence peddlers mentioned under the foregoing # 10.

4.)  The proper and just challenge to preserving and conserving these animals lies not with destroying human society or humans as is happening in Africa and India as I write.

5.)  Lethal controls are necessary and right in areas of human density and activity.  For instance, sharks should be excluded as far as is possible from beaches with moderate to heavy use.  Until the lobby groups or private enterprises come up with a workable and dependable way to exclude dangerous sharks from such beaches in Australia, the US or South Africa or on similar beaches worldwide, that means lethal control.

6.)  As someone living in a country with a $20 TRILLION debt, I do not believe that government funding should be spent by the millions on things that would certainly appear to be no more effective than fladry or electric fences for livestock being ravaged by wolves, or bells being worn by hikers or workers in grizzly bear country.

7.)  Government funds directed toward sharks (like government funds directed toward other mammalian large predators mentioned herein) should be directed toward enactment and enforcement of laws that allow local control in certain areas and protection in other (not all) areas.  Leave it to the Universities and NGO’s to “investigate” “sonar buoys” shark “face recognition”, “electronic and magnetic shark deterrent devices”, and “cameras attached to sharks”.  The government role is to first protect its citizens.

Three years ago I wrote several articles comparing the “conservation” of mammalian and marine predators like sharks, wolves and killer whales.   The two articles below [link (WSJ is a PayWall and link] indicate to me how far astray we have come in just the short time since I wrote those articles.  I submit that we could take this shark article and this grizzly bear article and just use them in the future for the next wolf or cougar attack that kills or maims a human in the US.  For that matter, the next Nile crocodile that kills an African woman doing her wash or an African kid playing by the river; we can use these article by just erasing “shark” or “grizzly bear” and scribbling in “lion” or “tiger” or whatever misunderstood critter evokes our mercy by causing us to equate such animals with hapless humans offered up by the government druids for their notion of what the “ecosystem” should be.

Here are a few comments on what appears in these recent news items.  These items are highlighted in the articles and are not meant to be snide or to condemn either our Australian or Canadian cousins that like us emerged from the British Colonial system.  Truth be told, American concepts of wildlife management, human justice, and rural economic concern are as far or farther astray than either of these articles tell us about Australia or Canada.

1,) “The effort is being closely watched around the world—especially tourism-focused places like Réunion, a French territory whose economy was devastated after sharks killed seven people in recent years.”

Comment: While this is about sharks, the same thing is happening in the Lower 48 US States with forced introduction of grizzly bears (the latest in central Washington state) making de facto wilderness areas due to the danger from the bears as are forced wolf introductions exterminating elk and moose hunting along with ranching and rural residences.  Denying it as we do, fools no one.

2.) “Where some of these species of sharks bite people, it becomes more of a social issue, whether the government should be responsible for the safety of their citizens when they go into the ocean.”

Comment: What chutzpah!  As a former colonial and as a US Constitutional supporter, I can only marvel at any representative government being perceived as neither concerned nor responsible for the safety of their citizenry utilizing THEIR beaches.  Yet, the US government mimics this attitude by their wolf and grizzly bear activities being no one’s responsibility when they go horribly wrong and even California’s government behaving similarly with their sanctification of cougars within that state.

3,) “Record keeping on shark attacks is fragmented and inconsistent,

Comment: See, sharks are just like wolves and grizzly bears.  Nothing is for sure so only the government wizards know the “truth” and thus the courts will believe only them.  For those unfamiliar with this lingo, “fragmented and inconsistent” means you must believe whatever we say it is about “how many”, the “danger” and what to expect or who is responsible. If we say moose and elk disappeared because of “climate change” or that persons or cattle killed by wolves were killed by “undetermined animals, possibly dogs” then by golly that is the truth so move along citizen, there is nothing to see here.

4,) “Thousands of underwater video tapes showing that sharks are much more abundant in northern Australia than in unprotected waters like those surrounding Indonesia—the world’s biggest shark-fishing nation”.

Comment:  What a mysterious assertion.  Could there be a connection?  Can sharks prosper in one place (like Australia) while evidently hammered unmercifully relatively nearby (like Indonesia)?  Could this be duplicated on a scale such as lightly-used Australian beaches v. heavily-used beaches?  Inquiring minds want to know.

5.) People for some reason have a real fear of sharks,” Geoff Harris, the club’s president and a veteran lifesaver, said as he surveyed the town’s deserted white-sand beach one morning. “I think it’s the fear of being eaten by something.”

Comment: Ya’ think?

6.) “But you don’t want to jump to the conclusion that the bear’s hungry and it attacked an individual.  Norris also said it’s “never cut and dry that a bear will be destroyed because it attacked someone.”

Comment:  Indeed, animals have “rights”!  Their motive is important!  You never know when there are extenuating circumstances that justify releasing him or her like Americans are doing with criminal illegal aliens that only return and repeat offenses until they stand accused of homicide.  I am reminded of that satirical Jewish definition of chutzpah being the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.

Jim Beers

27 March 2017

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

 

 

Share

Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our March 11, 2016, proposed rule to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, by removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). In our proposed rule, we emphasized that the governments of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho needed to promulgate regulations managing human-caused mortality of grizzly bears before we would proceed with a final rule. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho recently finalized such mechanisms. We are also announcing the receipt of five independent peer reviews of the proposed rule. We are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to allow all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule in light of these documents. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparing the final rule.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Alliance Submits Comments on Delisting of Grizzly Bears

Press Release from the Sportsmen’s Alliance:

The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation recently submitted comments in favor of delisting of the grizzly bear as a threatened species under the federal the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Alliance supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service findings that the bear population has recovered and stringent ESA protections are no longer necessary.

“Grizzly bears have undeniably recovered in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and their removal from the Endangered Species Act is long overdue,” said Evan Heusinkveld, President and CEO of Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “It is well within in the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist this distinct population of bears. In fact, at this point it’s incumbent upon them to do so as outlined in the ESA.”

The result of a 30-year collaborative effort between federal and state agencies, and using the best available science and wildlife management principles, all evidence suggests Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear populations have surpassed recovery goals by 25 percent and have remained stable and above recovery goals for nearly a decade while also tripling their occupied range.

Not only has the grizzly bear population recovered and stabilized, threats to that population have been mitigated to the point that they no longer meet the definition of endangered, or even threatened.

“All available evidence suggests that this grizzly bear population will continue to flourish after delisting,” said Heusinkveld. “That’s a testament to decades of work by USFWS and its partners, and which includes post-delisting monitoring and management plans that will ensure the species is never again threatened with extinction in the Lower 48 states.”

Clearly outlined in the Endangered Species Act are requirements for U.S. Fish and Wildlife to, at any time, remove a species, subspecies or distinct population segment of a species from the protections of the act once recovery goals have been met.

Once delisted, the Sportsmen’s Alliance encourages the U.S. Forest Service, National Wildlife Refuges and other federal land managers to defer to state wildlife population management to the maximum extent permitted by law.

“The National Parks Service and U. S Forest Service manage 88 percent of lands within suitable grizzly habitat,” said Heusinkveld. “Those federal agencies should respect state management goals and future hunting seasons by not passing any special rules or policies that would encroach on the ability of Idaho, Montana or Wyoming to manage grizzlies within the current federal framework.”

One remaining threat, however, is a lawsuit from animal rights and anti-hunting organizations. “These groups have shown that population recovery is simply not enough to meet their insatiable demands,” said Heusinkveld. “Just like with wolves, no level of recovery will ever satisfy their desires to keep the bears listed as a threatened.”

As with wolves currently, keeping grizzly bears listed as threatened or endangered compromises other populations of predator and prey species, even the very habitat itself, found within the completely managed ecosystems.

Share

You Can’t Roller Skate in a Grizzly Bear Herd

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is up to its usual lying, cheating and stealing, pretending its intentions are the delisting of the grizzly bear in the so-called, “Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.” Lest we forget that we operate within a rigged system of control, profiteering, and human engineering? The USFWS has no serious intention to remove the grizzly bear from Endangered Species Act protection. And, when considering all aspects of the fascist U.S. Government, why would states want control – meaning they get to spend local taxpayer’s dollars instead of Federal – over the grizzly bear no more than they should want control over the GI Wolves that the Government forced onto the public. They built it, let them deal with it.

Ignorance and short memories persist in the farce of the Endangered Species Act smoke and mirrors show. In 2008, after several court challenges to gray wolf listing and delisting proposals, the USFWS, by order of the Courts, redrew their lines to designate which boundaries they had been able to get away with in the past. In other words, after President Nixon signed into law (1973) the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves in all of the Lower 48 states were declared “endangered” with the exception of Minnesota, where wolves were labeled, “threatened.”

In 1994, the Feds carved out the Northern Rockies Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of wolves. In 1998, the Feds carved out the Southwest Distinct Population Segment for Mexican Wolves. It would be my assumption that the creation of these Distinct Population Segments were permitted because it involved the introduction of wolves into those areas.

The Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment designation, didn’t fare so well, because wolf introduction wasn’t involved. Because the Feds made the decision to carve out a DPS for the Western Great Lakes, for the purpose of delisting the gray wolf in that region, a Washington, D.C. Federal Judge ruled that it was illegal for the Feds to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting. Since that time, there have not been attempts to delist any wolves, or any other species that I am aware of, by first creating a DPS, until now. It is also my understanding, as I have not found any other court rulings, that the USFWS, in the Federal Register, expounded on their historic uses of Distinct Population Segments. Of course this was all done for their own convenience. I am not aware that this “explanation” of the Fed’s right to create DPS for any purpose, has been challenged in the Courts.

The question has always remained that if the Courts are to rule that it is illegal to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting, is it also illegal to create a DPS to list a species? As pointed out above, the initial declaration of labeling gray wolves in the United States (lower) as endangered while calling those in Minnesota threatened, was an illegal act, according to Judge Freidman, the Washington, D.C. Federal Judge. Every act of creating DPS for wolves or grizzly bears or any other species, therefore, has been illegal.

What it does do, and always will do, is provide a court convenience to rule according to the whim of the moment. As environmentalist’s lawsuit will be filed to stop the delisting of grizzlies in the “created” DPS of Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Courts have all the ammo they need to do just as they please. And the USFWS knows this and they use it for their own purposes as well. It’s easy to play good cop-bad cop when you know the outcome.

If the USFWS is not authorized, according to previous court rulings, to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting gray wolves, it still is not authorized to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting grizzly bears in the newly fabricated “Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.” This is nothing more that a part of the rigged fascist system we live in, where totalitarians eagerly work toward their own demise.

Below is a link to an opinion piece found in the New York Times. The author shares information, some of which is truth. I have excerpted part of his truthful words about public perceptions and hostile feelings toward the Endangered Species Act, as well as the animals themselves, the result of totalitarian enforcement of individuals’ ideology.

This proposal will end up in court. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule and what lucky rabbit they will pull out of their…hat.

While the author’s ideas may be good, the reality is that you can’t roller skate in a herd of grizzlies – meaning it is pointless to inject sense and sensibility into an insane, rigged system.

“Blocking the delisting of charismatic, Instagram-worthy megafauna like bears and wolves undermines the credibility of the act while costing taxpayers millions and diverting resources away from genuinely imperiled, if less photogenic, species.

There is increasing hostility toward the act, and toward the species themselves.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Grizzly shot, killed near family’s North Idaho home – Woman Failed to “Look Big”

*Editor’s Note* – Of course this woman should not be charged. She should be rewarded for caring more about her children and livestock than a damned bear. If the report given in this article is true, it appears the woman did everything idiot environmentalists (this includes law enforcement and wildlife enforcement) tell you to do when being attacked by a bear…save one thing. She didn’t take the time to “look big.” And don’t forget, we MUST blame this on a “bad berry crop.” Even WHEN environmentalists get tens of thousands of bears in everyone’s yards, those attacks on people and livestock will still be categorized as rare events.

A 2-year-old male grizzly bear threatening a North Idaho family was shot and ultimately killed on Tuesday. Now Barbara Casey, who shot the bear, is worried she’s in trouble for killing a federally protected species. “I don’t want to go to prison for saving my family and my animals,” Casey said.

Source: Grizzly shot, killed near family’s North Idaho home – Spokesman Mobile – Aug. 14, 2015

Share

Yellowstone park officials euthanize bear that killed hiker

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Yellowstone National Park officials euthanized a grizzly bear Thursday after DNA tests confirmed it attacked and killed a hiker last week, a park spokeswoman said.

Source: Yellowstone park officials euthanize bear that killed hiker – Yahoo News

Share

Woman injured in Alaska brown bear attack

A 20-year-old woman was flown to an Anchorage hospital after she was mauled by a brown bear Tuesday near a popular recreation spot on the Kenai Peninsula.

Source: Woman injured in Alaska brown bear attack | Fox News

HainesAlaska

Share

Man found dead in Yellowstone attacked by grizzly bear 

The National Park Service says a Montana man found dead in Yellowstone National Park was the victim of a grizzly bear attack.

Source: Man found dead in Yellowstone attacked by grizzly bear | Fox News

YellowstoneLake

Share

Grizzly bears, wolves killing cattle in western Wyoming

JACKSON, Wyo. (AP) — It hasn’t taken long for grizzly bears and wolves to start taking a toll on livestock this summer in the Upper Green River drainage in western

Source: Grizzly bears, wolves killing cattle in western Wyoming

Share