SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A mother and baby grizzly bear spotted in Yellowstone National Park. (Photo: I-Ting Chiang/CC BY-NC 2.0)
In Blow to Trump and Win for Bears, Federal Appeals Court Upholds Endangered Species Protections for Yellowstone Grizzlies
"This decision solidifies the belief of numerous wildlife advocates and native tribes that protecting grizzly bears should be based upon science and the law and not the whims of special interest groups."
Jul 08, 2020
Conservation and tribal groups scored a legal victory Wednesday after a federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's bid to remove endangered species protections for Yellowstone-region grizzly bears.
The ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upholds a Montana district court's decision, means grizzlies in the national park and surrounding area won't be subjected to trophy hunting.
The Trump administration in 2017 paved the way for such hunts by announcing the bears would be losing their federal protections, citing increased population numbers. That decision prompted objections from wildlife advocates who said it rejected science, including the climate crisis's impact on the bears' food sources and the need for higher population numbers to boost their long-term genetic health.
Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote in the opinion for court that "because there are no concrete, enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure long-term genetic health of theYellowstone grizzly, the district court correctly concluded that the 2017 rule is arbitrary and capricious in that regard."
Matthew Bishop, an attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center who argued the case, welcomed the ruling.
"Grizzlies require continued protection under federal law until the species as a whole is rightfully recovered," Bishop said in a statement. "The best available science says not only are grizzly bears still recovering, but they also need our help to bounce back from an extinction threat humans caused in the first place."
"Misrepresenting the facts to promote killing threatened grizzly bears for fun is disgraceful," said Bishop, adding that he's "glad the judges didn't fall for it."
Accordidng to Sarah McMillan, conservation director for WildEarth Guardians, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the ruling represents "a triumph of science over politics."
"This decision solidifies the belief of numerous wildlife advocates and native tribes that protecting grizzly bears should be based upon science and the law and not the whims of special interest groups, such as those who want to trophy hunt these great bears," she said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Conservation and tribal groups scored a legal victory Wednesday after a federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's bid to remove endangered species protections for Yellowstone-region grizzly bears.
The ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upholds a Montana district court's decision, means grizzlies in the national park and surrounding area won't be subjected to trophy hunting.
The Trump administration in 2017 paved the way for such hunts by announcing the bears would be losing their federal protections, citing increased population numbers. That decision prompted objections from wildlife advocates who said it rejected science, including the climate crisis's impact on the bears' food sources and the need for higher population numbers to boost their long-term genetic health.
Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote in the opinion for court that "because there are no concrete, enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure long-term genetic health of theYellowstone grizzly, the district court correctly concluded that the 2017 rule is arbitrary and capricious in that regard."
Matthew Bishop, an attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center who argued the case, welcomed the ruling.
"Grizzlies require continued protection under federal law until the species as a whole is rightfully recovered," Bishop said in a statement. "The best available science says not only are grizzly bears still recovering, but they also need our help to bounce back from an extinction threat humans caused in the first place."
"Misrepresenting the facts to promote killing threatened grizzly bears for fun is disgraceful," said Bishop, adding that he's "glad the judges didn't fall for it."
Accordidng to Sarah McMillan, conservation director for WildEarth Guardians, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the ruling represents "a triumph of science over politics."
"This decision solidifies the belief of numerous wildlife advocates and native tribes that protecting grizzly bears should be based upon science and the law and not the whims of special interest groups, such as those who want to trophy hunt these great bears," she said.
Conservation and tribal groups scored a legal victory Wednesday after a federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's bid to remove endangered species protections for Yellowstone-region grizzly bears.
The ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upholds a Montana district court's decision, means grizzlies in the national park and surrounding area won't be subjected to trophy hunting.
The Trump administration in 2017 paved the way for such hunts by announcing the bears would be losing their federal protections, citing increased population numbers. That decision prompted objections from wildlife advocates who said it rejected science, including the climate crisis's impact on the bears' food sources and the need for higher population numbers to boost their long-term genetic health.
Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote in the opinion for court that "because there are no concrete, enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure long-term genetic health of theYellowstone grizzly, the district court correctly concluded that the 2017 rule is arbitrary and capricious in that regard."
Matthew Bishop, an attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center who argued the case, welcomed the ruling.
"Grizzlies require continued protection under federal law until the species as a whole is rightfully recovered," Bishop said in a statement. "The best available science says not only are grizzly bears still recovering, but they also need our help to bounce back from an extinction threat humans caused in the first place."
"Misrepresenting the facts to promote killing threatened grizzly bears for fun is disgraceful," said Bishop, adding that he's "glad the judges didn't fall for it."
Accordidng to Sarah McMillan, conservation director for WildEarth Guardians, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the ruling represents "a triumph of science over politics."
"This decision solidifies the belief of numerous wildlife advocates and native tribes that protecting grizzly bears should be based upon science and the law and not the whims of special interest groups, such as those who want to trophy hunt these great bears," she said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.