By LESLIE KAUFMAN
In Saturday’s paper, I wrote
about the repercussions of a Congressional decision in April to remove
the gray wolf from the endangered species list through legislation.
In the aftermath of that maneuver, viewed by many conservation groups as a debacle, some environmentalists wondered whether their organizations had gone too far in fighting to prevent the federal government from delisting the wolf after the population expanded.
Because even the Fish and Wildlife Service believed that the wolf had recovered adequately, the legal challenge from environmentalists contributed to a negative reaction among ranchers, hunters and others, who turned to their elected politicians. Hence the Congressional action.
Now a very similar case is in the courts, one involving the grizzly bear.
In 2007, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists concluded that the grizzly bear and its habitat in the Great Yellowstone area had recovered sufficiently for the animal to be taken off the endangered species list. As part of that process, the species was placed under state management, with a detailed plan that was approved and shaped by bear biologists employed by the federal governement.
The bears were delisted for two years. But as with the wolf, a coalition of environmentalists sued, saying the state plan was inadequate. The group argued that the plan did not consider the rapid decline of the white bark pine, a food source for the bear, or include an adequate response plan should the bear population go into a nosedive.
(The original listing under the Endangered Species Act, in 1975, occurred after Yellowstone Park closed its garbage dump and the bear population went declined sharply.)
As with the wolves, Judge Donald Molloy of United States District Court in Missoula, Mont., heard the case and found for the conservationists. The Fish and Wildlife Service has appealed, and a decision is expected any day now from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
To Chris Servheen, the grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the parallels with the wolf are eerie and maddening. It is as the if conservationists have learned nothing, he suggests.
“It is exactly the same people, the same lawyers, the same judge — it’s like Groundhog Day,” he said, referring to the Bill Murray movie in which the lead character has to relive the same day over and over again.
But Doug Honnold, an attorney with Earthjustice who is leading the environmentalist coalition, said the two cases are radically different, both biologically and politically.
“Wolves are more effective reproducers,” he said. “Grizzlies are the second least reproductive land animal in the park.”
And grizzlies do not have the enemies that wolves do, Mr. Honnold added. “Ranching communities are pretty darn quiet and accepting of grizzlies, which were never entirely wiped out,” he said.
Finally, only land in Wyoming would be affected by a court decision in the conservationists’ favor. It is unlikely that a Congressional coalition to delist the bear legislatively could be built without all-out support from Montana and Idaho senators as well, as was the case with the gray wolf, Mr. Honnold said.
Dr. Servheen disagrees. “If this is blocked by legal interference, it does not bode well for the E.S.A.,” he said, referring to the Endangered Species Act.
“If people see the E.S.A. does not work because of endless legal interference, it does not build public and Congressional support,” he said. “When we have achieved success, as we have with the Yellowstone grizzlies, we need to show it works. And when we have a successful program, we should achieve the final crossing of the goal line, which is recovery and delisting a population.”
source
Associated Press.
A grizzly near Beaver Lake in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.
In the aftermath of that maneuver, viewed by many conservation groups as a debacle, some environmentalists wondered whether their organizations had gone too far in fighting to prevent the federal government from delisting the wolf after the population expanded.
Because even the Fish and Wildlife Service believed that the wolf had recovered adequately, the legal challenge from environmentalists contributed to a negative reaction among ranchers, hunters and others, who turned to their elected politicians. Hence the Congressional action.
Now a very similar case is in the courts, one involving the grizzly bear.
In 2007, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists concluded that the grizzly bear and its habitat in the Great Yellowstone area had recovered sufficiently for the animal to be taken off the endangered species list. As part of that process, the species was placed under state management, with a detailed plan that was approved and shaped by bear biologists employed by the federal governement.
The bears were delisted for two years. But as with the wolf, a coalition of environmentalists sued, saying the state plan was inadequate. The group argued that the plan did not consider the rapid decline of the white bark pine, a food source for the bear, or include an adequate response plan should the bear population go into a nosedive.
(The original listing under the Endangered Species Act, in 1975, occurred after Yellowstone Park closed its garbage dump and the bear population went declined sharply.)
As with the wolves, Judge Donald Molloy of United States District Court in Missoula, Mont., heard the case and found for the conservationists. The Fish and Wildlife Service has appealed, and a decision is expected any day now from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
To Chris Servheen, the grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the parallels with the wolf are eerie and maddening. It is as the if conservationists have learned nothing, he suggests.
“It is exactly the same people, the same lawyers, the same judge — it’s like Groundhog Day,” he said, referring to the Bill Murray movie in which the lead character has to relive the same day over and over again.
But Doug Honnold, an attorney with Earthjustice who is leading the environmentalist coalition, said the two cases are radically different, both biologically and politically.
“Wolves are more effective reproducers,” he said. “Grizzlies are the second least reproductive land animal in the park.”
And grizzlies do not have the enemies that wolves do, Mr. Honnold added. “Ranching communities are pretty darn quiet and accepting of grizzlies, which were never entirely wiped out,” he said.
Finally, only land in Wyoming would be affected by a court decision in the conservationists’ favor. It is unlikely that a Congressional coalition to delist the bear legislatively could be built without all-out support from Montana and Idaho senators as well, as was the case with the gray wolf, Mr. Honnold said.
Dr. Servheen disagrees. “If this is blocked by legal interference, it does not bode well for the E.S.A.,” he said, referring to the Endangered Species Act.
“If people see the E.S.A. does not work because of endless legal interference, it does not build public and Congressional support,” he said. “When we have achieved success, as we have with the Yellowstone grizzlies, we need to show it works. And when we have a successful program, we should achieve the final crossing of the goal line, which is recovery and delisting a population.”
source
No comments:
Post a Comment