Grizzly Bears’ Future May Hinge on This Court Decision

Illustration for article titled Grizzly Bears’ Future May Hinge on This Court Decisionem/em
Photo: Gregory Smith (Flickr)

This month, hunters in Wyoming and Idaho were going to have their first opportunity to shoot grizzly bears for sport in more than 40 years. But a court order last week put the kibosh on that, throwing the future of the controversial trophy hunt and the fate of the animals into uncertainty—at least for now.

Advertisement

On August 30, a district court judge in Missoula issued a restraining order temporarily halting Idaho and Wyoming’s planned grizzly bear hunting seasons, which were set to begin on September 1. The order came following a hearing in which a Native American tribe and conservation groups argued that the federal government’s 2017 decision to remove endangered species protections for the Greater Yellowstone grizzly—the second largest of five grizzly bear subpopulations in the Lower 48—was illegal.

Ultimately, it was that decision that paved a path for Wyoming and Idaho to permit trophy hunting of the bears this year. 

Advertisement

“Grizzly bears have not been hunted in the Lower 48 states for more than 40 years and for good reason,” Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit, told Earther via email. “These magnificent animals occur in less than 5 percent of their historic range and with at most 1,800 bears, less than one percent of their historic abundance. The job of recovery is far from complete.”

The question of recovery is central to the plaintiffs’ argument. Opponents of hunting highlight the fact that the 700-strong Yellowstone grizzly population has declined somewhat in recent years due to increased human-bear conflict, something conservation advocates tie to a loss of key food sources “driven in part by a warming climate.” Conservationists also worry about how the hunt would impact the overall recovery of grizzlies in the Lower 48. As a species, grizzlies are still listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Tim Preso, lead attorney for Earthjustice on the case, pointed Earther to a court decision last year that overturned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s delisting of Western Great Lakes region gray wolves, because the agency failed to consider negative impacts on the species at large. Preso said the federal agency tried to apply the same logic from that losing case to the current grizzly case.

Apparently, that didn’t sit too well with District Court Judge Dana Christensen, who called out the gray wolf case in last week’s court order. The judge also wrote that the planned hunts would cause irreparable harm to grizzlies “because once a member of an endangered species has been injured, the task of preserving that species becomes all the more difficult.”

Advertisement

While this is all encouraging for opponents, the courts still have to decide whether federal protections for the Yellowstone bears should be restored. The restraining order is in effect until September 14, but Preso said it could be extended if the courts need more time making a decision.

Whatever that decision may be, it could have immediate ripple effects on grizzlies across the U.S. As NPR reports, federal wildlife officials are currently weighing whether to delist the 1,000 grizzlies living around Glacier National Park in Montana, and “[t]he judge’s decision in the Yellowstone grizzly case could shape the way officials proceed.”

Advertisement

A decision on the fate of the Montana grizzlies is expected by the end of the year. As was the case with the Yellowstone population, the delisting of these bears would likely be met with “a slew of lawsuits” per NPR.

This year’s grizzly hunts could still happen. But the fight to restore these iconic predators across the U.S. shows no signs of slowing down.

Advertisement

Maddie Stone is a freelancer based in Philadelphia.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

dnapl
Dense non aqueous phase liquid

Of course there are libertarian economists from University of Chicago who think the endangered species act is folly. Folly until there’s no regulation at all. Fucking Hyde Park pricks.

This from freakonomics guy, Steven Levitt. NPR plays freakonomics podcasts in some markets if you’re like me and use NPR to fall asleep and still have a rotary phone. The show is actually good stuff, but it’s all freshwater economics and constant fawning over Milton Friedman’s dead rotting corpse kind of stuff.

Is the Endangered Species Act bad for endangered species? John List thinks it might be.

Here’s a copy/paste snippet from the 2007 post. I’m too lazy and stupid to paraphrase:

He’s got a new working paper with Michael Margolis and Daniel Osgood that makes the surprising claim that the Endangered Species Act — which is designed to help endangered species — may actually harm them.

Why? The key intuition is that after a species is designated as endangered, a decision has to be made about the geographic areas that will be considered critical habitats for that species. An initial set of boundaries is made, after which there are public hearings, and eventually a final decision on what land will be protected. In the meantime, while this debate is ongoing, there are strong incentives for private parties to try to develop land that they may in the future be prevented from developing by the endangered species status. So destruction of habitat is likely to actually increase in the short run.

I honestly do not necessarily disagree with the overall premise. Yes, in reality every asshole and his brother will write regulations so there’s workaround-ability. This is true for a lot of environmental regulation. The perfect case in point is acting EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler. He knows exactly which reg or reg section is necessary for status quo preservation, which one needs tweaking for MAGA, and which one needs gutting for his future clients again. What a revolving door prick that dude is.