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 grizzly bear walks through the fall foliage in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming on September 30, 2017. (Photo: Ania Tuzel Photography/Flickr/cc)
Groups Challenge Trump-Approved Plan to Kill 72 Grizzlies Near Yellowstone
"The federal government shouldn't be killing native species so the livestock industry can graze cattle on public lands for next to nothing."
Jul 07, 2022
A pair of environmental groups on Thursday filed a notice of appeal to challenge a Trump administration-approved plan that would allow up to 72 grizzly bears to be killed to accommodate private livestock grazing near Yellowstone National Park.
"A wide range of effective, nonlethal measures are available to livestock producers."
Thursday's filing by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club appeals a May decision by the U.S. District Court of Wyoming, which ruled that the federal government may authorize the extermination of as many as six dozen grizzly bears in the Upper Green River area of Wyoming's Bridger-Teton National Forest.
"We're determined to stop this terrible plan, which could be a death sentence for dozens of Yellowstone grizzly bears," Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "The federal government shouldn't be killing native species so the livestock industry can graze cattle on public lands for next to nothing. We believe the court's decision was flawed, and we'll continue to fight for the lives of these magnificent bears."
According to the groups:
The court's opinion contained several legal flaws. For example, the court erred when it determined that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's [FWS] analysis discussing the project's impacts to bears was legally sufficient, even after acknowledging that the agency's analysis lacked a discussion of how many females could be killed under the project.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are not alone in fighting the federal court's decision to uphold the Trump-era plan for lethal removals.
Last month, the Western Watersheds Project, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to reverse the lower court's ruling, which dismissed plaintiffs' argument that FWS failed to adequately account for how killing up to 72 grizzly bears--out of an estimated 727 in the Greater Yellowstone region--would affect a species categorized as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
As that trio of groups explained:
Grizzly bears reproduce slowly, with lengthy periods between litters of cubs. For that reason, maximizing the survival of female grizzlies is key to the recovery of the species. Yet despite previous limits in the Upper Green on killing female grizzly bears--essential for population maintenance--the Service abandoned such protections in 2019 without explanation, and greenlit the lethal removal of dozens of bears over the next 10 years.
Last month's appeal also accuses FWS of violating the Bridger-Teton Forest Plan.
"The plan requires that grazing retain adequate forage and cover for wildlife," the groups noted. "Yet according to the agency's own scientists, the authorized level of use by domestic cattle will result in inadequate cover for sensitive amphibian and migratory bird species on these public lands."
Bonnie Rice, a senior representative for the Sierra Club, said Thursday that "the intentional killing of dozens of grizzly bears is a slap in the face to decades of recovery efforts in the Greater Yellowstone region."
"We cannot allow these bears to be killed when a wide range of effective, nonlethal measures are available to livestock producers," Rice added. "The priority should be requiring and enforcing conflict prevention measures and promoting coexistence and safety for bears and people."
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.
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
A pair of environmental groups on Thursday filed a notice of appeal to challenge a Trump administration-approved plan that would allow up to 72 grizzly bears to be killed to accommodate private livestock grazing near Yellowstone National Park.
"A wide range of effective, nonlethal measures are available to livestock producers."
Thursday's filing by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club appeals a May decision by the U.S. District Court of Wyoming, which ruled that the federal government may authorize the extermination of as many as six dozen grizzly bears in the Upper Green River area of Wyoming's Bridger-Teton National Forest.
"We're determined to stop this terrible plan, which could be a death sentence for dozens of Yellowstone grizzly bears," Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "The federal government shouldn't be killing native species so the livestock industry can graze cattle on public lands for next to nothing. We believe the court's decision was flawed, and we'll continue to fight for the lives of these magnificent bears."
According to the groups:
The court's opinion contained several legal flaws. For example, the court erred when it determined that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's [FWS] analysis discussing the project's impacts to bears was legally sufficient, even after acknowledging that the agency's analysis lacked a discussion of how many females could be killed under the project.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are not alone in fighting the federal court's decision to uphold the Trump-era plan for lethal removals.
Last month, the Western Watersheds Project, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to reverse the lower court's ruling, which dismissed plaintiffs' argument that FWS failed to adequately account for how killing up to 72 grizzly bears--out of an estimated 727 in the Greater Yellowstone region--would affect a species categorized as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
As that trio of groups explained:
Grizzly bears reproduce slowly, with lengthy periods between litters of cubs. For that reason, maximizing the survival of female grizzlies is key to the recovery of the species. Yet despite previous limits in the Upper Green on killing female grizzly bears--essential for population maintenance--the Service abandoned such protections in 2019 without explanation, and greenlit the lethal removal of dozens of bears over the next 10 years.
Last month's appeal also accuses FWS of violating the Bridger-Teton Forest Plan.
"The plan requires that grazing retain adequate forage and cover for wildlife," the groups noted. "Yet according to the agency's own scientists, the authorized level of use by domestic cattle will result in inadequate cover for sensitive amphibian and migratory bird species on these public lands."
Bonnie Rice, a senior representative for the Sierra Club, said Thursday that "the intentional killing of dozens of grizzly bears is a slap in the face to decades of recovery efforts in the Greater Yellowstone region."
"We cannot allow these bears to be killed when a wide range of effective, nonlethal measures are available to livestock producers," Rice added. "The priority should be requiring and enforcing conflict prevention measures and promoting coexistence and safety for bears and people."
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
A pair of environmental groups on Thursday filed a notice of appeal to challenge a Trump administration-approved plan that would allow up to 72 grizzly bears to be killed to accommodate private livestock grazing near Yellowstone National Park.
"A wide range of effective, nonlethal measures are available to livestock producers."
Thursday's filing by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club appeals a May decision by the U.S. District Court of Wyoming, which ruled that the federal government may authorize the extermination of as many as six dozen grizzly bears in the Upper Green River area of Wyoming's Bridger-Teton National Forest.
"We're determined to stop this terrible plan, which could be a death sentence for dozens of Yellowstone grizzly bears," Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "The federal government shouldn't be killing native species so the livestock industry can graze cattle on public lands for next to nothing. We believe the court's decision was flawed, and we'll continue to fight for the lives of these magnificent bears."
According to the groups:
The court's opinion contained several legal flaws. For example, the court erred when it determined that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's [FWS] analysis discussing the project's impacts to bears was legally sufficient, even after acknowledging that the agency's analysis lacked a discussion of how many females could be killed under the project.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are not alone in fighting the federal court's decision to uphold the Trump-era plan for lethal removals.
Last month, the Western Watersheds Project, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to reverse the lower court's ruling, which dismissed plaintiffs' argument that FWS failed to adequately account for how killing up to 72 grizzly bears--out of an estimated 727 in the Greater Yellowstone region--would affect a species categorized as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
As that trio of groups explained:
Grizzly bears reproduce slowly, with lengthy periods between litters of cubs. For that reason, maximizing the survival of female grizzlies is key to the recovery of the species. Yet despite previous limits in the Upper Green on killing female grizzly bears--essential for population maintenance--the Service abandoned such protections in 2019 without explanation, and greenlit the lethal removal of dozens of bears over the next 10 years.
Last month's appeal also accuses FWS of violating the Bridger-Teton Forest Plan.
"The plan requires that grazing retain adequate forage and cover for wildlife," the groups noted. "Yet according to the agency's own scientists, the authorized level of use by domestic cattle will result in inadequate cover for sensitive amphibian and migratory bird species on these public lands."
Bonnie Rice, a senior representative for the Sierra Club, said Thursday that "the intentional killing of dozens of grizzly bears is a slap in the face to decades of recovery efforts in the Greater Yellowstone region."
"We cannot allow these bears to be killed when a wide range of effective, nonlethal measures are available to livestock producers," Rice added. "The priority should be requiring and enforcing conflict prevention measures and promoting coexistence and safety for bears and people."
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.