Is it time to stop protecting the gray bear?

But the European Space Agency was only aimed at protecting “reasonably expected threats,” says Wales. Congress enjoys the ability to protect species indefinitely-just as it did for wild horses under the actions of wild and wild horses in 1971 and Burros Law or for many types of birds under the law of the Treaty of Migratory Birds. But these were specific and intentional laws.

He says: “If there are other reasons that make someone or groups of people believe that stalling bears should be protected forever, then this is a different conversation from the act of endangered species.”

But this force also works in the opposite direction. If GRIZZLY remains on the list for a long time, Congress may decide to delete species, as legislators did in 2011 when they removed gray wolves from the list of endangered species in Montana and Edahu.

These types of decisions occur when people who live alongside the recovered species, especially the type of livestock, spend enough time to pressure legislators in their mandate, says Daning, a researcher of wildlife struggle.

When Congress takes, science tends to go out. Political deletion is not limited to biologists, but rather puts a precedent, and it opens the capabilities of legislators to start the types of cherry selection that they see as obstacles to grazing, registration, drilling or construction. The least -ranging chicken has prepared the legislative goals list.

“At the present time, the idea of ​​scientific research has lost its magical quality,” she says. “We get there by excluding people and not listening to their voices and feeling that they are not part of the process.”

And when people feel that they are excluded for a long time, she says, the danger is not only this support for Bears will erode. The audience’s will to protect any threatened types may begin to collapse.

The issue of the gray deletion

For Dan Thompson, the supervisor of the large meat in Wyoming, the issue of deleting the goriss is very simple: “Is the population recovered with all the organizational mechanisms in force and the data to support that it will remain recovered?” He says. “If the answer is yes, then the answer to the deletion is yes.”

For this reason Thompson believes that it is time to calculate gray. It is not alone. Van Manin says the major population of Yellowston “works very well.” In fact, Grizzlies has achieved recovery targets about 20 years ago.

Reaching there was not easy. After closing the waste burials and the population of the bear decreased, it took a tremendous effort for decades from states, tribes, federal biologists and non -profit organizations to restore Grizzlies. The various entities have funded the bears garbage systems for people living in cities near national gardens and electric fences full of attractive orchids. They have developed safety workshops for people who live in or visit Bir, and track fishermen.

And little by little, I worked. Bear numbers are enlarged, and by mid -2000, more than 600 bear toured in Yellowston.

Looking at this success, the American fish and wildlife service suggested deleting Grizzlies for the first time in late 2005. Environmental groups were suitable, and the bears won continuous federal protection such as Pine Whitebark, an important nutritional source. Bears can come out, and can be preserved, and their population can decrease again. But a subsequent federal study of what was found exactly the amazing bears, that although Grizlies performs white pine seeds during the bumper years, they do not depend on trees to survive. In fact, Grizzlies consumes at least 266 species of everything from pesson and mice to fungi and even one type of soil.