LAT: Grizzlies May Lose Protection

[DeepModem Mom]

Grizzlies May Lose Protection
Bears in the Yellowstone area could be cut from the endangered species list by year's end, a move that some local ranchers have long sought.

By Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer


CODY, Wyo. — Federal officials have begun the process of removing grizzly bears around Yellowstone National Park from the endangered species list, ending 30 years of protection and shifting responsibility for their management to state officials who may allow hunting.

Seen as a major conservation success story, the Yellowstone population of grizzlies has increased about fourfold, from 150 to nearly 600 since going on the endangered list in 1975, and it is continuing to grow at an annual rate of 4% to 6%, according to the U.S. Department of Interior.

The federal delisting plan unveiled in Cody last week calls for maintaining the existing level of protection for bears within a 9,200-square-mile area in and around Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.

But special protections will be dropped outside that loose ring of federal land. Beyond it, where many grizzlies wander and 10% to 30% of them live, bear habitat will be open to road building, logging, recreation and development. Under the delisting plans, state officials in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho will take over management of the bears and may allow hunting outside the protected areas....

***

Although conservationists agree that the bears have rebounded, many say that the decision to strip protections comes at an inauspicious time for grizzlies. Two of their major food sources — cutthroat trout and seeds from white bark pine trees — are in a steep decline. And steady population growth is causing new homes and roads to be built deeper into the bears' habitat....


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grizzlies16jan16,0,3608034.story?coll=la-home-local

[zann725]

1. This should please Steven Colbert of "Colbert Show," whose #1fear is BEARS

...to an obsessive level.

Love the show...personally feel sorry for the bears however... and other wildlife whose territories are being encrouched upon by development.

[wordpix]

2. a nation of humans, starlings and squirrels is no nation I want to live in

* is killing the environment

[MrPrax]

6. Yeah...

But he stole it from the Simpsons! and that is why his show is not that good :-(

[Kagemusha]

3. If implementation was perfect this plan would not suck so much.

But that would require faith in the competence of state government. I'm sorry, being liberal on social policies doesn't make me have faith in that...

[wordpix]

4. the state of Wy, MT, and CO won't protect the griz- they prefer roads and

development to wilderness and wildlife protection

[Lorien]

5. People move to those areas to "enjoy" the Wilderness and it's Wildlife

and by doing so they destroy both.

Bears are a keystone species; an indicator of the health of the entire environment. If the salmon and seedlings are both in decline, then the area needs MORE protection, not less.

It's insane that 600 bears are considered a "large" population, unworthy of protection. Here we are, over six BILLION humans on the planet, and the current administration wants to protect stem cells but not threatened species during one of the worst periods of biodiversity loss in history? It's complete "faith based" insanity.