Why Delisting is a Problem
In this backgrounder, we lay out the foundations of the state and federal push to remove endangered species protections for the Yellowstone grizzly bear. These include political influences by western elected officials in the primary service of agriculture and industry, and the cultural, institutional and financial incentives for the states to kill wild animals, including large carnivores. We also discuss how conflicts over how bears are managed reflect conflicts inside ourselves and society at large.
This punchy fact sheet summarizes the central reasons why conservationists oppose delisting. These include the problems with post delisting management, the vulnerability of grizzly bears to ongoing and increasing threats such a climate change and invasive species, the failure of the government to consult with affected Tribes. If you have no time to read anything else, this will give you the basics.
This piece summarizes the basic arguments that the government has marshalled to support grizzly bear delisting, and refutes them point by point. One key problem is how the government is spinning the science to promote its agenda. Another is the government’s claims that the states are up to the task of managing grizzlies given their history with other large carnivores such as wolves, as well as financial and political dependence on a minority of hunters, rather than the broader public.
This piece summarizes the key narrative of the US Fish and Wildlife Service that drives the debate over the Endangered Species Act: that species, particularly large “inconvenient” carnivores such as grizzlies and wolves, must be delisted so as to protect the ESA. This piece shows how conservative western politicians, such as WY Governor Matt Mead, are driving the agenda to gut the ESA not matter what happens with listing or delisting of species. In essence, the ultra-right is running a campaign to crush the effectiveness of government, and gutting the ESA is one if its major targets.