Posted on 12/12/2013 4:51:01 PM PST by george76
Yellowstone's grizzlies, now classified as a threatened species, were briefly removed from protected status by the federal government in 2007, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared that the outsized, hump-shouldered bears had made a healthy comeback.
At the time, the number of grizzlies in the region had exceeded the government's recovery goal of 500 bears, the government said.
But conservationists successfully challenged the de-listing in court, arguing that the government discounted climate changes
...
On Wednesday, members of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee sought to reverse that decision, recommending a new de-listing after reviewing a report suggesting Yellowstone's bears can be sustained by berries and a multitude of other food sources.
The panel estimated the grizzly population in and around Yellowstone, which spans parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, has now climbed to about 600 bears.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
LOL. I'll vote for that, with the rider that if any of those critters (or their prey) wanders North into Pennsylvania, we can have open season on them with no bag limits. ;~))
As a side note, and something that will absolutely horrify PETA...
Just today, the Pennsylvania House approved a $25 bounty on coyotes
Putting the profit motive to work. It works wonders.
HARRISBURG — Hunters could reap a $25 bounty for killing a coyote under a bill approved Wednesday by House lawmakers.
(snip)
Licensed hunters and furtakers can kill an unlimited number of coyotes year-round under current law. But this legislation authorizes the Pennsylvania Game Commission to establish a coyote control program to give licensed hunters and furtakers a financial incentive to hunt and kill coyotes. The commission would set the rules to run the bounty program.
Go somewhere else with smaller bears. Like the sierras black bears
They (wolves and grizzlies) were there first. Probably important for keeping other critters. (Not us). In check
Still big animals are scary. Been around plenty of em
Grizzs and Polaris are not to be messed with
” Are you saying that wild critters have no right to have any habitat all their own, i.e. being able to escape from people? “
Woof, WOOF - Straw Dog time.
Large bodied predators were once in fear for their lived because “they learned to their great regret that nearly every man and boy carried a rifle”.
When gunpowder speaks, beasts obey.
It is cruelly deceptive to allow large bodied predators to not have a mortal fear of man. When they do, they leave us alone - man and beast can then occupy the same habitat only after the issue of who is the apex predator is established beyond doubt.
I have a dream that one day naked Grizzly and Wolf environmental activists will be herded into those wildlife sanctuaries and abandoned wearing nothing but a coat of bacon grease.
Good plan
The decline of the White Bark Pine due to Climate Change was used by the Environmentalists to sway the judge’s ruling. Rise in sea levels was also used to try and sway some people.
Thanks
I understood that from the get go. It still has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.
Environazis always lie.
Thanks for the Ping
Problem solved... :-)
Grizzlies, now classified as a threatened species, can not be hunted anywhere.
If the grizzlies were no longer classified as a threatened species, then the states could issue hunting permits on state or private land outside of the national park.
I’m not sure if you are aware of it, but the Left is all for loping off access to a lot of public land because humans damage it.
I believe nature was put there for us to enjoy. While I do like the idea of animals having access, if it comes to a choice, I’ll opt for humans first in the lower 48. In Canada or Alaska, I believe the areas are so sparsely populated that the animals come first.
It is not a straw man question, though that’s how you chose to address it. It is beside the point to argue that man should make animals fear him since I am simply bringing up the issue of whether there should be places on this earth where animals can live unmolested by man.
You are arguing that if these animals are not taught their lesson that they’ll then come attack them. No, they won’t if sufficient barriers (such as separation by hundreds of miles) are erected, neither of them would meet.
This is something for the locals to work out. I’m not trying to tell them what to do. I’m merely making my thoughts known.
If the locals are happy having grizzlies in those areas, then I’m all for it. I shouldn’t be able to run half-way across the nation telling others what to do.
This is where we really disagree and I see no way to reconcile our points of view.
I maintain that not everything in this world was created for human's support and/or pleasure. Some things have their own intrinsic value.
That said, I will close by stating the obvious: we see things very, very differently.
P.S. I am aware of what the Left is up to; I have noted this for a long time.
Okay. I appreciate the note of difference. Perhaps you’re right. I can only state how I see it at the present time.
Thanks.
Well, yeah, but it turns out more humans are killed by black bears, and they are more likely to be aggressive.
That was basically my point in reverse. If the grizzlies were no longer classified as a threatened species they still could not be hunted in Yellowstone Nat. Park.
That’s funny!
On the serious side, taking a wile coyote’s or wolf’s “manhood” away would make it’s life miserable.
Well, yeah! All those fat human tourists they,ve been eating are really making them multiply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.