Members of a committee that encourages the recovery of grizzly bears in the region are criticizing a federal judge’s decision that restored federal protection for the animals.

During a meeting Wednesday and Thursday in Jackson, several members of the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee said U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, of Montana, was wrong to put grizzly bears back under Endangered Species Act protection given the size of the bear’s population in the region. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team estimate roughly 579 bears live in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, up from about 271 bears when the species was placed under protection in 1975.

At the meeting, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Chris Servheen said the agency has filed a request to amend or alter the decision based on “what we perceive to be errors in the decision.” The request, if Molloy rejects it, could precede an appeal by the federal government.

“We don’t agree with the details of the decision for a number of reasons,” he said. “It would make it difficult, if not impossible, to delist a species under the Endangered Species Act.”

Servheen pointed out that Molloy did not request any information from the committee when making his decision.

Bill Rudd, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s assistant wildlife division chief, called on the committee to draft a letter in support of delisting, which several committee members supported. The idea was later dropped after Grand Teton National Park Superintendent Mary Gibson Scott said the letter might conflict with the ongoing legal process.

Dale Goble, a law professor at the University of Idaho College of Law, who is not on the committee, called Molloy’s criticism that state bear management plans from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are unenforceable “extremely troubling.”

The Endangered Species Act would not be functional under Molloy’s interpretation of the law, he said.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader Chuck Schwartz found fault with another part of Molloy’s decision that is based on the decline of whitebark pine trees, a major food source for bears. In his ruling, Molloy said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “downplays the relationship between whitebark pine and grizzly bear survival.”

“I think [Molloy] misinterpreted the science,” Schwartz said.

Fremont County Commissioner Pat Hickerson echoed Schwartz and several other commissioners when he said grizzly bears have begun to expand into areas where their presence is incompatible with activities such as producing livestock.

“At some point, these expansions have to be limited,” he said. “And I don’t know how we can do that while these things are listed.”

Craig Kenworthy, conservation director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, defended his organization’s decision to file the lawsuit that led to Molloy’s decision.

“The judge used the Fish and Wildlife Service’s own statements and own science,” he said. “He called them on identifying a serious problem and not dealing with it.”

Doug Honnold, managing attorney of the Bozeman, Mont., Earthjustice office, said by phone Thursday that Molloy followed the law when he put grizzlies back under protection of the Endangered Species Act and that there is a concern that the bears would go back to endangered status under state management.

“Judge Molloy did not break any new legal ground in his decision,” he said. “The requirement is the states pony up to the bar and pay the price. The states in our region haven’t been willing to do that.”