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 ...
Global Warming Fanatics Propose “Carbon Card,” Will Charge People With Large “Carbon Footprints”
Greenpeace Santa to Kids: Global Warming Could Cancel Christmas
Can the United Nations Point to Evidence of Global Warming? Apparently Not
Global Warming Is About Control and Money Not Climate
Global Warming on Free Republic
they have bow and arrow seasons for these two animals in the great northwest.
thing is as a hunter ouut during bow season you are forbidden from carrying a gun.
you best be a REAL good shot with very large balls if you go out bow hunting for griz.
And thank you for the nice note. It’s good to find—again—that we Freepers do not necessarily have to express hostility while disagreeing on an issue.
No problem...
Having once been a member of the Florida Sierra club’s Florida Executive Commitee (FLEXCOM) I can claim to have been a real, live, duped, FLEXCOMMIE.
The argument you are making is not possible, as we are not going to devote huge areas to “critical habitat” for any critter. The very idea of critical habitat was abused and perverted from a simple scientific concept to an excuse to communize America. Trust me on this point, as I was there and heard/participated in the discussions - they are commies and they do want to destroy American capitalism and American private property.
Let gunpowder induce mortal fear of man and both can “just get along’.’
I completely forgot to mention that thanks to President Bush, Americans can once again be armed in National Parks - according to the laws of the state in which the Park is located. Same for National Forests.
Soon, some grizzly or wolf will learn the lessons its ancestors once knew - never, never, Ever approach anything on two feet.
I suggest investing in Duct Tape stock - libtards will be buying it wholesale to keep their heads from popping open as soon as they realize the hated Bush made it both possible and legal to use gunpowder to defend ones self against a pampered predator.
Who is the “chimp” now, Libtards?
Your ideal has a mythical basis.The real mistake that government "managers" made was to remove the true apex predator and keystone species in that system: The American Indian. There is nothing large predators can do that people cannot.
I resent these NGO Progressive meddlers calling themselves "conservationists"--the land is conserved for human beings. These are just Marxists who hate people, worship animals instead of God and take ever more money from the oligarchs who also hate people to make those people as miserable as possible.
I am. They are useful or they are not. The system was under anthropogenic management when white explorers arrived and distorted it to fit their 18th Century idea of "nature" as a self-optimizing system containing no people. It doesn't work.
Further, to confer "rights" to anything other than people is to set oneself up to be the guarantor of those rights exclusive against any competing claim. Who made you king? I promise you, there were fewer grizzlies there before European crowd diseases infested that area than there are today. If you don't believe that, then what happened to the dire wolf or the short-faced bear?
After being in North America for 22 glacial cycles, they suddenly disappeared soon after Clovis Man invaded the continent.
Humans probably introduced C. lupus after the Pleistocene when they brought bison over the Bering Land Bridge to the North American continent.
It was put there for us to make the most of it.
A biocentric perspective projects the spirituality of being into everything. To a deep ecologist, a rock would have a rock’s spirit, a rock’s consciousness, and thus deserves civil rights equivalent to human beings, which they alone purport to represent.
This is a debilitating thing to do to one’s own mind, much less to a republic. To claim to represent the rights of rocks is to project a subjective human impression of a rock’s preferences onto rocks. What if they were wrong? Perhaps the rocks might feel more appreciated by a mineral geologist who would want to make aluminum cans out of them? Did anybody ask the rocks? You guess.
When activists of any stripe demand rights for animals, rocks, or plants, what they are really doing is demanding disproportionate representation of their interests as self-appointed advocates. Unfortunately, to enforce a right requires the police power of government, because it is assumed to be a disinterested arbiter of competing claims. History suggests the opposite, which is why limiting the number of enforceable rights is as important to securing liberty as constituting them as such.
When government gains the power to confer rights to any constituency, it acquires the means to confer power upon itself as an enforcing agent. There is then no limit to the power to dilute the rights of citizens. Agency respect for those rights then exists not at all.
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm
FIREARMS IN PARKS
As of February 22, 2010, a new federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal, state, and local laws, to legally possess firearms in this park.
The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, was enacted May 22, 2009 and will become effective February 22, 2010. Section 512 of this law; Protecting Americans from Violent Crimes, supersedes the uniform treatment of firearm possession in the national park system outside Alaska under the regulations found at 36 C.F.R. 2.4.
It is the responsibility of visitors to understand and comply with all applicable state, local, and federal firearms laws before entering this park. Yellowstone encompasses parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Each state has different regulations and these are listed below.
Federal law also prohibits firearms in certain facilities in this park (such as visitor centers, government offices, etc.); those places are marked with signs at all public entrances. Hunting and discharge of firearms remain prohibited in Yellowstone National Park.
Firearms should not be considered a wildlife protection strategy. Bear spray and other safety precautions are the proven methods for preventing bear and other wildlife interactions.
I reckon the question, then, is whose backyard the barrier goes in. Just about any place the critters would want to live, there are at least a few people.
Wild animals are dangerous. As long as people and their children are being encouraged to visit our national parks, their welfare has to be a consideration.
I agree with that. Now I don’t remember the context I made that reference in, but it was probably related to what sounds reasonable on first blush. Of course your point is a lot better.
You know, if they want to restore something to that region, I think you’ve come up with exactly the right idea. It would be great to see tribes returned to their ancestral status if it could be accomplished.
I suspect there are parts of the status that might not be as universally appreciated though, if you catch my drift.
I agree Mamzelle.
Grizzlies are good eatin’, aren’t they?
Thanks for the comments Carry_Okie. They were informative, but I haven’t much to add.
In the Bible it states mas was to rule over the animals. I don’t think it’s productive to set it up the other way around.
Animals were put here for our enjoyment. I hardly see an animal threatening man to the point he can’t enter into certain areas to fit that model.
I agree. In loose terms, the land is there for us to use to our purposes, be they recreation or some utilitarian purpose.
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.