Article published November 27, 2005
Taking grizzlies off list would be very good thing
One of the best things that can happen for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone region is for a successful follow-through on the recent U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service proposal to take them off the federal endangered species list.
If that plan comes to fruition, grizzlies there would be managed by state wildlife agencies in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho and limited hunting eventually could be permitted. That's a good thing, too.
No doubt such a view will draw gasps of disbelief from some environmentalists, but such a view recognizes some facts of life that often are glossed over when debate becomes sharply polarized. For regulated hunting would be a useful management tool, not a new threat to delisted grizzlies, as some contend.
Grizzlies in and around Yellowstone National Park have recovered from a low of about 270 in 1975, when they were listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Since then, the bears have increased in number each year to about 600 today.
As a result the big powerful bears are roaming much more widely, expanding their range - sometimes onto traditional ranchlands and sometimes into new rural residential ex-urbs and resort areas that did not exist in 1975. People-bear conflicts as a result are on the rise.
So are conflicts among various segments of the environmental community. The National Wildlife Federation, for example, finds itself on the opposite side of the fence from the likes of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and some others that contend that too many threats still exist to the bears' future and they should remain fully protected.Such a contention in a way is a slap in the face of state wildlife agencies, which over the last 60 to 80 years have developed sound, science-based management plans for all sorts of wildlife, both game and nongame. It is as if state agencies cannot be trusted.
In a deeper sense, the grizzly issue also is about the difference between the preservationist who espouses non-use of everything, as if anything natural must be left totally untouched and inviolate, and the conservationist who espouses that some things wild and natural can be used if used wisely. It also is a difference in philosophy over the importance of individual animals versus that of a whole species.
"The simple truth is that in modern times, professionally managed game hunting in this country has never resulted in a population decline that threatened the viability of any species," asserts Ben McNitt, a senior spokesman for the NWF.
Indeed, modern wildlife management - principally bankrolled by license-buying sport hunters and not the general public - has brought back all manner of popular
wild creatures, from wild turkey and white-tailed deer to elk, pronghorn "antelope," beavers, river otters, and others. Such sucesses, however, tend to be ignored during shrill us-versus-
them debates.
Further, hunting often is blamed for the disappearance of many species, from passenger pigeons to some of the aforementioned "restored" species. That's true in many cases. But again, what is not mentioned is that that hunting was the unregulated, unthinking product of a 19th-century frontier mentality that bore no regard for land or beast.
Indeed it took conservationist-hunters such as President Teddy Roosevelt and other leaders of like mind to set the tone for what has become a fish and wildlife management and habitat conservation system that is, or should be, the envy of the world.
The fact that grizzlies have recovered enough to consider them for delisting from the ESA is a cause for celebration. Too many folks think of listing under the act as a permanent consignment to perpetual protection, or a one-way ticket to obvilion. Not so. The whole idea is to protect and manage species so that they can recover and prosper within the limits of available habitat.
Unfortunately the country is so politically polarized now that trust is the most endangered of species. But it says here that if one knows wildlife professionals from coast to coast, states to federal government, and understands their dedication, concern and knowledge, there is no reason to fear for the grizzly.
Me? I have no interest in ever hunting a grizzly bear, though I have been around plenty of them over the years from western Montana to the North Slope of Alaska. But if, after careful deliberation wildlife managers in Montana or Wyoming or Idaho eventually are allowed to decide that a few grizzlies could be hunted, so be it.
Note, too, that four other grizzly populations in the lower 48 states, in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington, would continue under federal protection under the ESA. Alaska's 30,000 grizzlies never were listed.
This is not some simple-minded drive to grow more live targets for slavering, gun-toters with itchy trigger fingers. Shame on purveyors of such sterotypes. This is about making honest, thoughtful, logical decisions in a real world, not some fanciful Never-Never Land.
Modern wildlife management agencies have an exemplary track record of trying to balance available habitat with wildlife populations while allowing for cropping of surpluses. Their decisions are not ideal, and sometimes political motivations seep in. But by and large these agencies labor mightily to juggle and factor in many societal concerns, including habitat protection and public safety, and their success rate shows it.
That is one good reason why some 400,000 hunters will be afield come tomorrow morning in an annual trimming of the Ohio deer herd. The hunters, by the way, are paying their own ways to conduct wildlife management, and the public benefits for free. Licenses, not taxes, support wildlife management.
So let the Yellowstone region's grizzlies be delisted. Let the states at hand manage them - wisely and collectively as proposed under an Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. Allow the regulated hunting community to take "ownership" of grizzlies. You will find that the bears never had it so good.
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
