February 6, 2023

Grizzly Bears, The Courts, The Government, The RIGGED SYSTEM

Reinstatement of ESA Listing for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Compliance With Court Order

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that had the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Thus, this final rule is required to reflect the change effected by that order to the GYE grizzly bear population’s status on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. DATES: This action is effective July 31, 2019. However, the court order had legal effect immediately upon being filed on September 24, 2018.<<<Read More>>>


Wildlife 101

By James Beers:

Fantasy disguised as “science” is called “junk” and your report about Yellowstone (Wolves, Cougars Help Restore Landscape) in the 12 November U. S. Watch is “junk”.

Despite the titles of the authors and University status of their employment, elk herds did not “grow in size” due to the “widespread extermination of wolves and cougars”.  They grew in size because the Park Service bureaucracy would not allow hunting of elk (or anything else) in the Park for the greater part of the last century.  Neither hunters nor federal bureaucrats did anything about the elk increase except study and whine about it.

Hunting that would have kept the elk at any desired level while funding conservation programs went unjustified for decades.  In addition to visceral NPS prohibitions, could elk management have been justified to “restore willow plants and other vegetation along the park’s streams” or to change “the herd’s behavior” or to “allow streams to return to a ‘more’ natural state”?  Right!

Hunting or those vaunted “government sharpshooters” using modern wildlife biology could have kept elk at whatever level was desirable.  Such a “level” however, has become a value decision for decades with urban fantasies slowly gaining steam to denigrate human management of wildlife for human welfare in favor of unmanaged ecosystems with dangerous deadly and destructive large predators at large threatening people while killing certain animals like moose, dogs and livestock in unacceptable numbers.

Think of it as replacing truthful data and knowledge with free-roaming, protected predators; a practice condemned in writing first by the Greeks hundreds of years before the time of Christ.

Jim Beers

12 November 2018

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.


RMEF, Sportsmen’s Alliance File Brief in Support of Yellowstone Grizzly Management

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation filed a joint summary judgement brief supporting a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to remove federal protections from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear population.

“We stand alongside the Sportsmen’s Alliance and our fellow conservation organizations in supporting federal scientists and wildlife biologists who declared the grizzly population fully recovered,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “The next step is keeping grizzly management under the umbrella of state agencies that manage all wildlife in accordance with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which uses hunting as a management tool.”

“Despite the emotional rhetoric of the animal rights crowd, the time has come to return this population of bears to state management,” said Evan Heusinkveld, Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “The truth is, this is a historic moment for the species and the Endangered Species Act as a whole. Returning the Yellowstone area population of bears to state management should be a monumental achievement widely celebrated as a conservation success story.”

Numbering more than 700, 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 in a manner that maintains its healthy and secure status.

RMEF and its partners helped permanently protect more than 169,000 acres of vital wildlife habitat valued at more than $131 million in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Additionally, RMEF also directly contributed more than $3.1 million and leveraged an additional $17.5 million to help enhance wildlife habitat on more than 426,000 acres in the GYE. RMEF also contributed more than $1 million in funding and leveraged an additional $10 million from conservation partners to carry out 118 GYE wildlife management and wildlife research projects.

“These projects are crucial and helped to contribute to the understanding of wildlife populations, ecology and habitat needs, including increasing the understanding of grizzly bears and conserving the habitat needed for them to thrive in conjunction with all wildlife populations,” said Weaver. “Habitat needs to remain the focus of on-the-ground conservation work, not seemingly non-stop litigation.”

The federal judge laid out a schedule that includes several more filing deadlines as well as a hearing in late August. He has stated he will make a ruling before the hunting season begins in September.


Possible Effects of Court Decision on Wolves, on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Conterminous United States


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are seeking public comment on a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that may impact our June 30, 2017, final rule delisting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear Distinct Population Segment (DPS). In Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., the court opined that the Service had not evaluated the status of the remainder of the listed entity of wolves in light of the Western Great Lakes (WGL) wolf DPS delisting action and what the effect of lost historical range may have on the status of the WGL wolf DPS. We also describe in this notice our strategy to recover grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower 48 States of the United States and provide a brief recovery update for each ecosystem.<<<Read More>>>


Wolves Don’t Change Rivers

“Yes, you heard that right. The wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 have not restored the landscape. They have not brought back the aspens and willows. They have not brought back the beavers or the songbirds. And no, the rivers have not changed, either.

Then why does “How Wolves Change Rivers” (HWCR) claim otherwise? Because the creators of the four-minute long viral video (now approaching 20 million hits just via YouTube) “are adherents to romance biology,” according to former USFWS biologist Jim Beers. Plus, the whole notion of Yellowstone as wilderness is “inherently racist,” argues wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Kay. I spoke with both Jim Beers and Dr. Kay in preparing this article. Dr. Kay was especially put out by the video’s claims.”<<<Read More>>>


Landscape Changes in the Lamar Valley

*Editor’s Note* – The revolving photo on the landing page, shows changes in the landscape of the Lamar Valley – perhaps not so dramatic as to the trained eye. The website provides a brief history of the area and some scientific explanations to the results of a changing landscape. Quite interesting.

“Lamar valley bison c. 1924 (Yellowstone National Park Archives NPS-YELL-27818) and in 2016 (CW-2016-07-24-090). In the 1920s, Yellowstone National Park wranglers stampeded a domesticated herd of bison across the Lamar valley grasslands to thrill park visitors. The early view may be a publicity still taken in 1924 for Hollywood’s filming of Zane Gray’s story “The Thundering Herd.”  The haystacks for winter bison feed are visible on the center right.1 Modern wildlife conservation policies now allow bison to roam freely within the park, and Yellowstone’s total bison numbers have increased from a few hundred in the 1920s to over 5000 by the year 2005.”<<<Read More>>>


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>>>


Descendants of the first settlers reveal the truth about returning wolves to Yellowstone


Lupus Mathematica

Observe! What you see is nothing but a plain, ordinary, black, top hat. Look inside! Nothing in it. I’m going to wave my magical wand and a wolf puppy will pop out of my hat. Or some such nonsense. Here’s an example of voodoo Lupus Mathematica when it comes to an all out effort to protect the disease-carrying varmints – regardless of the cost to humans.

The other day I read in a few Online news accounts where one headline read: “Panel Rejects Tripling Wolf Harvest Near Yellowstone.” (emphasis added) What a frightening proposition that anyone would even suggest the idea of needlessly slaughtering three times the number of wolves that are already taken by hunters and government agents. Isn’t that the reaction sought by the media? Did you swallow the bait?

“OMG! I heard that Montana has at least 700 or 800 wolves and that last year evil, mentally ill, hunters and government agents killed 200 wolves. OMG! If Montana had planned to triple the wolf harvest…OMG! That’s over 600 wolves!” as some ignorant environmentalist would exclaim. Isn’t that the reaction sought by the media?

However, that’s not true but it’s how people emotionally react and part of that training comes from irresponsible headlines that read that Montana decides not to TRIPLE the wolf harvest – Oh, did anybody seriously mention that harvest was only NEAR Yellowstone? In an area with more than enough wolves to go around?

A more honest approach to this non issue news story would be to first present how many wolves government officials allowed to be harvested last year in this same region NEAR Yellowstone – that would be TWO WOLVES!

Officials had recommended increasing that quota to SIX WOLVES! However, that figure just doesn’t sound so threatening to wolves as does a statement to TRIPLE the wolf harvest.

Get a life!


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>>>