Appeals court says Yellowstone grizzlies must remain protected
Reprinted with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. Not for republication by Wyoming media.

A federal appeals court last week upheld a Montana judge’s decision that the federal government must protect grizzly bears near Yellowstone National Park.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling found the Interior Department failed to prove that a decline in whitebark pine — a key food source for grizzlies — would not threaten the species’ survival.

But the San Francisco-based appeals court reversed U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s 2009 finding that existing regulatory mechanisms failed to ensure the species’ continued recovery.

The ruling came as a victory for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a Bozeman, Mont.-based conservation group that challenged the government’s decision to remove grizzlies from the federal endangered species list in 2007.

“We appreciate the strong language of the 9th Circuit Court saying that [the Fish and Wildlife Service] must further study the demise of the whitebark pine and its impact upon grizzlies before it can delist the Yellowstone griz,” Mike Clark, the group’s executive director, said in an email. “We look forward to working with the feds and state officials on plans that ultimately will delist the griz when it is appropriate.”

The decision means federal agencies must continue to manage lands to protect the iconic species, which could affect activities like logging, mining and road building in the West.

At the time of the species’ original listing in 1975, grizzly numbers in the lower 48 states had dwindled from about 50,000 in 1,800 to between 136 and 312 near Yellowstone, the court wrote. The species has since rebounded slightly, numbering more than 500 at the time of its delisting in 2007, FWS said.

“It’s certainly welcome news,” Bill Snape, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said of the decision.

“The Interior Department completely swept under the rug the reality that the species is losing one of its major food sources to climate change,” he said. “Interior’s behavior was the definition of ‘arbitrary and capricious.’”

In its delisting decision, Interior cited studies stating that while there is a connection between whitebark pine and grizzly survival, the animals will adapt because they are opportunistic omnivores and will not be threatened by the loss of whitebark pine (E&ENews PM, Sept. 21, 2009).

The states of Montana and Wyoming defended the government’s delisting decision in the case, arguing the bears won’t go extinct under state management.

As grizzly numbers rise in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, some have blamed the animals for preying on livestock, damaging property and sometimes attacking humans.

(Banner photo by Shane Lin/Flickr)

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Reply