I'll get flamed for this, but 600 bears doesn't seem like very many to me. I think it's too soon to declare the problem has been solved. And the timing is idiotic; with all of Bush's other problems right now, does the admin need to give the Dems another chance to make an issue of something, to accuse him of insensitivoty to the environment etc?
Four other grizzly populations in other parts of the lower 48 states will continue to be protected as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Alaskan grizzly bears, which number about 30,000, were never listed under the act.
So, there are a lot more than 600 grizzly bears in the U.S., and those 600, according to the article are increasing at 4% per year. That's enough for me.
It is not just the harvesting of the Bears...
Some of the bears need to learn that humans are not their first choice for food. Some of the bears need to learn to eat wild food in the forest.
Second, this would begin to use science with scientists to make the decision of how many acres per bear.
Is 600 bears the right number for these acres? That answer will come over time from the scientists once the politics is reduced.
Currently it is politicians, lawyers and judges with no scientific training making these scientific decisions. It seems best to get emotional politics reduced in the decision process and increase the use of science in the decision making process.