Protection of grizzlies pondered
Forty years ago Saturday, President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act, credited with saving hundreds of species from extinction, including the bald eagle, the American alligator, Florida panthers, sea otters, pumas and manatees.
The anniversary falls as wildlife officials in the northern Rockies are considering lifting protections for hundreds of grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park, a move environmental groups decry as short-sighted. The grizzlies were granted federal protections in 1975 after they had been wiped out across much of their historical range.
They have since made a slow comeback, prompting the Fish and Wildlife Service to advance plans on whether to take more than 700 bears across the Yellowstone region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming off the threatened-species list.
A decision is expected in January. It would open the door for limited sport hunting of the bears in the area, though protections for their habitat would remain in place.
As that battle heats up, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration celebrated the full recovery of 31 species that had hovered on the brink of extinction. The first species that was pronounced fully recovered and delisted was the brown pelican.
Today, they are working to protect 1,436 U.S. species.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Scientists hope tiny robotic bee’s big dreams take flight
- Utah woman gets 5 years in baby sitter’s overdose death
- Scathing report says college trustees fail in mission
- $1T cost to sustain fighter jet in cross hairs
- GPS stations show drought-stricken California — not pushed downward by 63 trillion gallons of water — is rising
- States can apply for more time before using student scores to evaluate teachers
- $132.5M ransom asked for Foley
- EPA cites risks from air toxics in urban areas, improvements
- Don’t eat tuna, Consumer Reports tells mothers-to-be
- Fla. ban on gay marriage upended
- Police say couple wanted Amish girls for slaves