A federal district court judge overturned the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's decision to remove Grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone area from the endangered species list. From the LA Times:
In a strongly worded order, U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy said that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's conclusion that the bears would find adequate food and protected habitat in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho was not supported by the government's own science, and that protections put into place for the grizzlies were not enforceable.
The ruling largely supported conservationists' assertion that the predators faced devastating losses to one of their most important food sources as a result of climate change. It ordered the government to put the bears back under the protection of the Endangered Species Act until long-term strategies to assure their survival were in place.
"Much of the science [cited by the government] directly contradicts the service's conclusions," the judge wrote in his 46-page decision. "Where the agency's conclusions contradict the science, the conclusions are not reasonable, and the court need not defer to the agency's decision."
Prior to the Bush Administration's effort to delist this population, the Grizzlies had been listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
UPDATE: I've posted a copy of the order here.
SECOND UPDATE: Holly Doremus has more on Legal Planet:
It’s understandable that FWS and others who are deeply invested in conservation efforts want to celebrate their successes by delisting species which show population recoveries. But this decision should serve as a reminder that population increases by themselves don’t establish that delisting is appropriate. Delisting should happen only when the species’ future is secure, which means that the agency has taken a hard look at its future and verified that looming threats are adequately controlled. At that point, and only at that point, delisting can be cause for celebration rather than for litigation.
And the court is complaining about the science not supporting the service's conclusions while supporting the conservationists argument that global warming is going to deprive the bears of their food?
Here is why.
OM NOM NOM NOM
That's not letting the courts run the endangered species list, it's letting the courts enforce the rule of law. And most of us think that's a pretty good thing.
And appearantly the science leads whereever the judge says it does. So back to the original question...
Then:
Science says CO2 is not pollutant
Bears are OK - they can eat
Now:
Science say CO2 is a pollutant
Now Bears can't eat - they are endangered
A 46-page decision based on link between atmospheric CO2 and the food chain in Jellystone Park is what makes lawyers look like - well, lawyers.
polargrizzly bears will drown.It seems that more than pine nut depletion was considered.
Reasons for the whitebark pine decline are forest fires, pine beetles, and other factors "linked to climate change"
The law allowing delisting also specified re-listing if the grizzly-population monitoring showed that the existing conservation measures weren't working.
Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, human habituation, and whitebark pine seed crops
Whitebark pine decline: infection, mortality, and population trends
I am not even close to an expert on grizzlies or pine nuts, but I think some refelction on the issue beyond the predictable partisan 'it's all a hoax' rhetoric would be useful.
I would like to meet this "the science," and ask him a few questions.
There already is a Grizzly Bear Czar, it's called the FWS.
The thought makes me tingly.
Obviously, what we need is a Grizzly Bear Czar.
Appointing only humans to be Czars is obviously discriminatory.
Why not? The Global Warming - Eco Freaks will be the ones the Bears eat. With the new laws people with common sence will just shoot the bears that attack them. The others will not carry BAD GUNS and will find themselves lower on the food chain as they deserve.
Grizzly Bears will like their new food source. Easy to catch, tasty and all natural.
What more could the Eco-Freaks want?
Funny. Except — taking that comment seriously — it's a slur on mountain lions, who almost never attack people. See this page for instance at the California Department of Fish and Game, listing all verified mountain lion attacks in the state over the last almost 120 years — this in a state of (now) more than 36 million people, millions of whom live in relatively remote suburbs where tens of thousands of the big cats roam in close proximity to them and their homes.
Notice the number: a grand total of 16, only six of which were fatal, while two of those (resulting from the same attack, a century ago back in 1909) were due to rabies. Given those exceedingly low numbers, clearly it takes a mountain lion who is extremely seriously deranged by their standards — such as sick with rabies (which obviously not very many are) — not just hungry or even starving — for it to attack a human.
As it stands, any delisting can be a cause for litigation. It's built into the system.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.