© NPS Photo / Tim RainsSince the election (and probably before), I feared that a Trump administration would make sweeping changes to conservation in the United States. Unfortunately, that fear is coming to fruition in the wildlife space. After more than 40 years on the endangered species list, the Yellowstone grizzly bear will lose its protected status.
There are countless reasons why this is bad, but here are the top three, in my opinion:[teaserbreak]
3. This decision is not supported by facts or science.
The supporting theory seems to be that there is no longer a need to protect grizzly bears at Yellowstone because there are now approximately 700 bears in the park (from a low of approximately 150 in the 1970s). But, there is no science to indicate that 700 is the right number. In fact, at one point, there were more than 50,000 grizzly bears living across North America, suggesting that Yellowstone could support many more than 700. Moreover, the decision to delist the bears ignores concerns raised by countless wildlife groups, Native American tribes, and even general public opinion, which was based on the science supporting ongoing wildlife conservation efforts for Yellowstone grizzlies, who need our protection.
2. States are now free to use their own methods to “deal” with any purported over-population.
Without federal protection, there is little to prevent individual states from making decisions on how to manage wildlife they deem to be a “public nuisance” outside of certain restricted zones, which many fear will result in open hunting seasons for grizzly bears.
1. This is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg (which, as this administration apparently refuses to acknowledge, is rapidly shrinking).
I think we all knew that bad decisions about conservation were coming. We knew it from the rhetoric by administration officials, the hiring decisions at federal agencies, and even the attempts to remove transparency. But, this may be the first of many real decisions that are not only bad for wildlife conservation, but potentially fatal to certain species.
While alternative facts are bad when used to justify political decisions, this decision will have a real impact on living beings. If the Trump administration truly wants bipartisan support, as President Trump recently claimed, then the administration must do a better job of understanding that science and facts drive proper and sound decision-making, not impulse and inexperience.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
