Grps Split Over Risks to Grizzlies in Yellowstone Park(endangered or not?)

[DeepModem Mom]

Washington Post:
Groups Split Over Risks to Grizzlies in Yellowstone Park
Some Say Bears Should Stay on Endangered List

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 8, 2005; Page A08


MISSOULA, Mont. -- As the Bush administration prepares to remove Yellowstone's grizzly bears from the endangered species list, a schism has emerged in the environmental movement over whether the bears remain at risk.

The nation's largest environmental group, the National Wildlife Federation, says it now supports delisting the bears, whose numbers have bounced back impressively after three decades of federal protection.

But a number of powerful organizations, including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, say that the future of the grizzlies is still in doubt. They are threatening to sue the Bush administration if, as expected, it removes Yellowstone grizzlies from the list.

"The recovery has been a huge success, but removing federal protection now is too risky," said Heidi Godwin, regional representative for the Sierra Club in Montana. "You don't go from emergency room to the parking lot. The bears still need intensive care."

Big, omnivorous and photogenic, grizzlies are often called "charismatic mega-fauna." They are attention-grabbing, money-raising, vote-swaying icons for the environmental movement, and a significant split inside the movement's ranks about how best to protect them has not occurred before....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700774.html

[kid a]

1. I think he should wait for Sierra club to be on board with the lifting

[xchrom]

2. so they can hunt them.

[noonwitch]

4. That's what I figured it was about

I have no problem with hunting of animals that we have a plethora of, like deer. Grizzlies are different. Are they even edible?

[The Stranger]

5. They don't eat them. They stuff the carcasses, present them as trophies.

In their living rooms.

[TX-RAT]

7. Not true ( not taking the meat of a game animal is a crime)

At least in every state i'm aware of.

[The Stranger]

8. So you think they won't do it because it is a crime?

[TX-RAT]

9. Not any that i'm aware of.

But then again i've dealt with true outdoors-men and hunters.
Not criminals.
If they break the law, throw their butts in jail. Leaving meat to waste is criminal.

[TX-RAT]

6. Are they even edible?

Yep.

Bear meat is very good. I've had it many times. Just make sure it's throughly cooked.

[The Stranger]

10. Generally, it is not as safe to eat high on the food chain.

When there are dangerous toxins or pathogens in the environment, they become more and more concentrated each level up the food chain. Consuming the concentrated environmental toxins from one predator is worse than hundreds of the animals it preys upon.

That is why grazing animals and chickens were domesticated for food -- not bears, big cats or raptors (birds).

[TX-RAT]

11. Bears are a little different

They graze like cows
They browse like deer
Bears are opportunistic feeders, not quite the predators most people think they are.

[The Stranger]

12. They may be omnivorous, but they still prey upon other animals,

and the principle holds true.

[blindpig]

3. NWF

has always been one of the most conservative and pro-hunting of the big time enviro orgs. No surprises here.

This is premature. 600 individuals is not adequate, my understanding is that 500 pairs is the rule of thumb for maintaining a long term population.

I can understand NWF's reasoning, wishing to pre-empt Pombo by throwing a success in his face but this will not benefit the bears.