Federal land managers and the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho aren’t on the same page about some central elements of a tristate grizzly bear “conservation strategy.”
The document, up for discussion at a meeting last week in Bozeman, Montana, is part of the process that would end Endangered Species Act protections for the Yellowstone region’s 700-some grizzly bears. It’s intended to reflect a proposed federal delisting rule and bind protective measures afforded by grizzly bear plans and regulations established by the states.
Whether to manage grizzlies with the target of a specific number of bears or as a “stable population” was among the issues that caused friction between members of an interagency committee charged with crafting the document.
“This comes down to a matter of — just to be very frank — of trust for the three states’ commissions to be able to do their job in the future,” Wyoming Game and Fish Department Chief Game Warden Brian Nesvik told fellow members of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee’s Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee.
The discussion at the time of Nesvik’s remark was about giving the states discretion to hunt grizzlies down to as few as 600 animals in the event that a new population model is adopted that significantly boosts estimated numbers.
Shoshone National Forest Supervisor Joe Alexander called Nesvik’s request “a big ask.”
“I think we’re going to struggle with this one,” Alexander said.
The Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee also tried to resolve disagreement about whether to impose the protections of the conservation strategy upon the states for “perpetuity.” That was the language used in a draft conservation strategy, and it was vigorously resisted by Wyoming, Montana and Idaho officials.
“Foreseeable future” was thrown out as one possible replacement term.
“Clearly it needs to be longer than five years,” Custer-Gallatin National Forest Supervisor and subcommittee chairwoman Mary Erickson said. “Clearly there needs to be some longer-term commitment.”
Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk wondered what the implications would be if “in perpetuity” language was eliminated.
“Doesn’t that mean that all the commitments that are made by all the agencies expire after five years?” Wenk asked.
Because the conservation strategy isn’t a legally binding document, Game and Fish’s Nesvik said that’s not the case.
“That’s not the way we look at it at all,” Nesvik said. “Essentially, it’s good for as long as the parties that voluntarily agree to it continue to agree to it.”
The Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee intends to send the final version of the conservation strategy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for approval Nov. 3. The document will likely not be completed in time for the public to comment on it through Fish and Wildlife’s grizzly delisting review process.
The deadline has been pushed to Oct. 7 to write in about plans to pull the “threatened” Endangered Species Act status of the ecosystem’s grizzlies bear population.
Comments can be submitted by going to regulations.gov and typing “FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042” in the search box. Then click the “Comment Now” button.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.
.
The News&Guide welcomes comments from our paid subscribers. Tell us what you think. Thanks for engaging in the conversation!