Monday, October 3, 2016

Talking Points for USFWS Comments, #2




Comments are due by 11:59 p.m. on October 7, 2016. You do not have to be a resident of the United States to comment. 

Pursuant to Serena Baker of the USFWS, you are welcome to comment as many times as you want and all comments are read and considered.  The substance of your comment is the key factor not the number of times you comment, so you are welcome to include all your comments and documents in one comment.  If you have not commented previously, you can view our talking points for the first round of comments. These may be used now if this is your first comment.

Please REWORD the talking points below when writing your comments. In addition, please cite the peer review source for your comments where applicablePlease note that not all of the talking points include citations. Use as many of the following talking points as you like. Please prepare your comments in a separate document and then copy and paste them into the USFWS comments page AND email them to Secretary Jewell at exsec@ios.doi.gov.

If you have more time and have not already done so, please use some of these talking points as well

Submit your comment here. 




Federal agencies must engage in meaningful consultation with the tribes. Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, implemented by President Clinton and affirmed by President Obama, federal agencies MUST engage in a meaningful consultation process with the tribes when decisions are being made that affect the tribes. USFWS should have consulted with the tribes from the beginning but has failed to do. As a result, the delisting process should be immediately paused to enable proper consultation to occur between the federal government and each of the impacted tribes. 

Further Public Comment Needed. Even in the peer review, there were significant concerns expressed regarding the draft Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy must incorporate updated information and the revisions should be released for public comment and review. (Peer Review 21). Prior to publishing the final rule, the public should have the chance to comment on a complete proposed delisting package with a final Conservation Strategy, all final revised and enforceable state management plans and regulatory frameworks as well as the peer review.

Mortality Limits. USFWS’s calculation of mortality limits is far too high given how slowly grizzly bears reproduce. Further, the limits do not account for the possibility to overshoot these bounds. (Peer Review 15, 41). Even more concerning, in 2015, while Endangered Species Act protections were still in place, the independent female mortality exceeded the limit. This violation was omitted from the IGBST report but has been acknowledged by Mr. Wayne Kasworm of the USFWS. Despite that acknowledgment, nothing has been done to address the violation of female mortality limits in 2015. If this issue is unaddressed now, why should the public believe that things will be better when grizzlies are delisted?

No binding commitments on the states. There are no enforceable limits on mortality once delisting has occurred. The Conservation Strategy, itself, does not compel any agency to do anything. In fact, even if deaths exceed prescribed levels, no agency is required to do anything. USFWS has a duty to the American people for continued conservation of the grizzly bear species. Unfortunately, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have not offered the necessary  assurances that grizzly bears will continue to be conserved into the future. Rather, the states have rushed to put trophy hunting frameworks in place, revealing their true motivations.

In addition to submitting your own comment, please also sign on to the following comment letters from WildEarth Guardians, Humane Society of the United States and Center for Biological Diversity.

- WildEarth Guardians letter

- Humane Society letter

- Center for Biological Diversity letter 

- Sierra Club Letter

- NRDC Letter






Storm Secretary Jewell


This past week, leaders from tribes all across North America signed an historic treaty to protect the sacred grizzly bear. We need to keep the momentum alive by storming Secretary Sally Jewell and demanding that the Department of the Interior engage in meaningful consultation with the tribes regarding grizzly bear delisting.

TELEPHONE:  (202) 208 7351 (direct)

"Department of Interior needs to engage in meaningful consultation with the tribes on removing the Yellowstone grizzly from the Endangered Species list".


EMAIL: Send to exsec@ios.doi.gov. Then, go to the Feedback Form. Subject should be "Meaningful Consultation with Tribes on Grizzly Delisting" or similar. Text is as follows or in your own words:

In a recent address to the tribal nations regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline, Secretary Jewell stated: "How a federal action impacts your land, your water, your sacred sites, your treaty rights, your sovereignty, is relevant. It's important and your voices are important." If this is the case, why does the Department of the Interior refuse to engage in meaningful consultation with the tribal nations on the issue of delisting and trophy hunting the Yellowstone grizzly bear - an animal considered sacred to many tribes? A letter, an email, a webinar does not constitute meaningful consultation. Please sit down with the tribes to discuss this important issue. This past weekend, 50+ tribes and the Assembly of First Nations signed an historic, cross-border treaty - only the 3rd in 150 years - seeking continued protection of the Yellowstone grizzly. Please respect the treaty and consult with the tribes.

FACEBOOK: Go to Interior's Facebook page and leave one of the following comments IN THE COMMENTS SECTION OF AN EXISTING POST. (We are trying to leave comments on this particular post). Please also add a photo if possible - it makes your post stand out more.

1) Please engage in meaningful consultation with the tribes on grizzly delisting and hunting. Historic cross-border treaty to address this being signed this weekend by 50+ tribes and Assembly of First Nations. #ProtectSacredGriz

2) Just as with the Dakota Access Pipeline, there needs to be meaningful consultation with the tribal nations on issues affecting the tribes. This includes delisting and hunting grizzlies. Historic treaty seeking consultation and continued protection being signed this weekend. #ProtectSacredGriz


3) A “meaningful” consultation process is supposed to be followed by all federal agencies when decisions are being made that affect Indian tribes. Why isn't Department of Interior consulting with the tribes on grizzly delisting and hunting? #ProtectSacredGriz



TWITTER: Here is tweet sheet.







Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Talking Points for USFWS Public Comments

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened public comments and is specifically seeking comments on the proposed rule in light of the state management plans and the peer review. Comments are due by 11:59 p.m. on October 7, 2016. You do not have to be a resident of the United States to comment. 


Pursuant to Serena Baker of the USFWS, you are welcome to comment as many times as you want and all comments are read and considered.  The substance of your comment is the key factor not the number of times you comment, so you are welcome to include all your comments and documents in one comment.  If you have not commented previously, you can view our talking points for the first round of comments. These may be used now if this is your first comment.

USFWS will not consider more than 99% of public comments submitted during the previous period because those comments were either (a) not unique or (b) not substantive. By substantive, the service basically means of scientific value. In light of the foregoing, we ask you to please REWORD the talking points below when writing your comments. In addition, please cite the scientific source for your comments where applicable. We have provided citations below and ask that you copy and paste the citation part of the talking points. Please note that not all of the talking points include citations. Use as many of the following talking points as you like.

If you have more time to devote, please consider researching and writing your own public comment utilizing these resources (Thank you, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates).

Submit your comment here. 


1) Where is the public process allowing laypeople to weigh in on the important public policy issue of delisting Yellowstone area grizzlies? The decision to remove grizzlies from the Endangered Species list is not just a scientific one. It also is a public policy decision. Grizzlies are an icon of the American West. The public has a right to weigh in on their future. Should we allow animals such as these to be subject to trophy hunting? Millions travel from all over the world to view these bears. What are the economic ramifications of delisting and hunting? How will delisting impact the rest of the ecosystem?

2) USFWS uses OUTDATED science to categorize Yellowstone Grizzlies Bears as part of a species that spans the continent, while the best available science clearly shows that the Yellowstone population is part of a “clade 4”, which consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single “branch” on the “tree of life”.  USFWS makes reference in the Rule to an antiquated research paper (Rausch 1963) as a basis for lumping Yellowstone Grizzlies in with a presumed subspecies that spans the entire western North America.  The “best available science” comprised of a large body of post-1995 research, clearly shows that Yellowstone’s grizzlies are, instead, part of the first representative of Ursus arctos to migrate across Beringia into North America, perhaps as early as 70,000 years ago, and have an ancient history and current distribution that is restricted to central-western North America. USFWS does not make reference to this unique evolutionary and biogeographic circumstance of Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bears anywhere in the current delisting package.  This is a MAJOR OMISSION.  Nor does the USFWS make mention of the unique and much diminished status of this “clade 4" grizzly bears.  USFWS has failed to update the Recovery Plan for this grizzly bear population so as to reflect the massive amount of “best available science” that has been produced since the early 1990's.  USFWS has also failed to follow through with its own 2011 recommendation to update and revise the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. 

Literature Cited: Rausch, R.L. (1963).  Geographic variation in size in North American brown bears, Ursus arctos L., as indicated by condylobasal length.  Canadian Journal of Zoology, 41(1), 33-45).

3) Because the Conservation Strategy and Idaho state plan are not complete—and will not be completed prior to the public comment period closing, the public will not be able to evaluate whether post-delisting management is adequate to sustain Yellowstone grizzly bears. The Conservation Strategy is still being revised by the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and states. Further, Idaho's management plan is from 2002 and therefore woefully out of date. It should have been updated to reflect current science and public opinion. Had Idaho reopened the plan, it would have had to be approved by the state legislature, which would have delayed the delisting process. Due to political pressure, the state of Idaho did not take the time to prepare a new document, and, instead kept an obsolete plan in order to meet the USFWS deadline.

4) Yellowstone grizzly deaths are at a record high yet the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team no longer reports violations of mortality thresholds. (IGBST 2015 Annual Report, pgs 29-30). Due to this failure to report, managers and the public have no ready way of knowing whether too many bears are being killed or whether correction actions are needed. Further, this is an upward trend for the past decade and 2016 will most likely surpass this as thirty-five (35)  grizzly bears have been killed to date. The allowable Female deaths in 2015 exceed the allowable threshold, 10% inside the DMA. 

5) Political influence has polluted the delisting process. (a) USFWS contracted with a multinational oil, gas and mining corporation as the independent third party to oversee the peer review process. If grizzlies are delisted, 3 million acres of habitat will be open for increased fossil fuel development, mining, and more. Twenty-eight mining claims already exist in the Primary Conservation Area. Thus, employing such a firm to oversee peer review is a clear conflict of interest. (b) Further, a document obtained under FOIA revealed that USFWS handpicked the scientists for peer review of the delisting rule. This cannot be considered "independent" and undermines the validity of the peer review. (c) Finally, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team annual report is typically released in spring or early summer of the following year. This year, the report for 2015 was delayed - allegedly due to staffing issues - and only released after intense public pressure. Once the report was finally published on August 26, 2016, experts immediately noted glaring omissions regarding mortality limits, growth rate and data and analyses on bears outside the DMA. Such delays and omissions have the unfortunate appearance of serving a political agenda because information in this report indicates that delisting is not appropriate at this time.


6) The state management plans do not provide any specifics on how Yellowstone grizzlies can be connected to other bear populations. Lack of connectivity to other grizzly populations is a long-term genetic risk for Yellowstone grizzlies. (Haroldson, M. A., C. C. Schwartz, K. C. Kendall, K. A. Gunther, D. S. Moody, K. Frey, and D. Paetkau. 2010. Genetic analysis of individual origins supports isolation of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ursus 21:1–13. BioOne). Idaho and Wyoming’s plans both appear to strongly disfavor reintroduction or facilitating recolonization. (Peer Reviewer #4, pgs 3, 4). Idaho’s plan “clearly states that moving grizzlies into new areas (e.g., Bitterroot) is prohibited and intentions to connect GYE bear populations to these unoccupied areas is vague.” (Peer Reviewer #4, pg 2). Montana’s plan to facilitate reconnection is extremely unclear with no details other than “to manage for discretionary mortality” and having “attractant storage rules”. (Peer Reviewer #4, pg 2).



7) USFWS fails to adequately address the effect of army cutworm moths on birth and death rates of Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bears and fails to account for past effects of increases in consumption of moths by bears and future effects of losses of this food on the population.  Army cutworm moths are among the highest quality of grizzly bear foods in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, (Erienbach et al, 2014).  Over summering moths can consist of 50-80% fat (Kevan & Kendall 1997), which female grizzly bears need to achieve substantial body fat in excess of 20% to produce and sustain cubs. (Farley & Robbins 1995).  Consumption of moths by grizzly bears has increased dramatically from essentially nothing during the mid-1980's to high levels that have been sustained since the late 1990's.  (Mattson et al 1991b, IGBST 2015:42-43).  Individual sightings of grizzly bears on moth sites have numbered between 240-350 during the last three years (IGBST 2015:42-43), which strongly suggests that a substantial number of bears use this food resources and perhaps even the majority of those bears living in the eastern portions of the Yellowstone Ecosystem.   All of the 31 known army cutworm moths sites are located on US Forest Service lands. (Gunther 2014).  Six of these sites are located outside of the Primary Conservation Area.  No where in the Proposed Rule does USFWS address the demographic analyses relied upon and referenced by USFWS or have they in any way incorporated the effect of army cutworm moths consumption in their analyses of grizzly bear birth or death rates. 

Literature Cited: Erienbach, J.A., Rode, K.D., Raubenheimer, D., & Robbins, C.T. (2014).  Macronutrient optimization and energy maximization determine diets of brown bears.  Journal of Mammalogy, 95(1), 160-168.) 

Kevan, P.G., & Kendall, D.M. (1997).  Liquid assets for fat bankers; summer nectarivory by migratory moths in the Rocky Mountain, Colorado, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research, 478-482. 

Farley, S.D., & Robbins, C.T. (1995).  Lactation, hibernation, and a mass dynamics of American black bears and grizzly bears.  Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73(12), 1372-1378.

Mattson, D.J., Gillin, C.M., Benson, S.A., & Knight, R.R. (1991b).  Bear feeding activity at alpine insect aggregation sites in the Yellowstone Ecosystem.  Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69(9), 2430-2435.

Gunter, K.A., Shoemaker, R.R., Frey, K.L., Haroldson, M.A., Cain, S.L., van Manen, F.T., & Fortin, J.K. (2014).  Dietary breadth of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 25(1), 60-72.

8) The National Park Service ("NPS") should be heard on the issue of delisting and post-delisting hunting regulations. NPS seeks assurances that any hunting will take place well away from the parks - in essence, a buffer zone. Park bears are tolerant of humans and extremely valuable to local economies. Further, NPS has expressed concern that 100% of the hunting would take place where only 80% of the bears live. This could cause problems with connecting the Yellowstone population to the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, as evidenced by a 47% mortality rate outside of the DMA in 2015. (IGBST 2015 Annual Report, pg 29-30). NPS is familiar with the importance of these bears to tourism and its concerns should be addressed.

9) Instead of a hunting season, relocate bears to biologically suitable, tribal lands within historic range.  Every tribe in Montana opposes the delisting and hunting of Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears. The tribes object to trophy hunting of the bears on cultural and religious grounds, science, and economics. Therefore, if the Yellowstone population actually does need to be managed - and there remains significant debate that it does - these bears should not be killed. Rather, they should be transplanted to sovereign tribal lands. Reintroducing grizzlies to tribal land would revitalize many tribal cultures, which hold the grizzly bear as sacred.


10) The delisting plans do not contain any binding agreements to act. There are no enforceable limits on mortality once delisting has occurred. The Conservation Strategy, itself, does not compel any agency to do anything. In fact, even if deaths exceed prescribed levels, no agency is required to do anything. USFWS indicates that it will step in if the population dips below 500 but that is not compulsory.

11) Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are notorious for their hostile treatment of predators. How can we trust them to manage our grizzlies? In the states' joint comment, they (a) reject the need for federal oversight after the initial 5-year monitoring period, (b) reject the requirement of connectivity and (c) push for a range of 600-747 bears instead of accepting the population objective of 674 bears. They indicate that they want to "manage downward" meaning the states will aim for the lower number of 600 bears. Will USFWS give in to the states' demands? If so, why are those requirements no longer important to the continued survival of Yellowstone grizzlies?


12) Please offer additional public hearings across the country. Only people in Montana and Wyoming were able to give verbal testimony during the initial commenting period but all Americans have an interest in grizzly bears. American taxpayers have funded efforts to recover Yellowstone grizzlies – not just residents of a couple states. All Americans, therefore, should have the chance to weigh in on the delisting plan.





Sunday, September 18, 2016

All #DontDelistGrizzlies Tweet Sheets



Tweet Sheet #3



#DontDelistGrizzlies Tweet Sheet #3




2) Connecting Yellowstone grizzlies w/ other populations needed for survival of entire species #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/oEZyieKXAU

3) Dakota Access proves tribes MUST be consulted. .@POTUS pls listen on grizzly delisting! #NoDAPL #ProtectTheSacred pic.twitter.com/w66AUhHebx


















24) Population decline due to loss of 2 key foods; bears switched to meat, led to more human conflicts .@RepDonBeyer pic.twitter.com/pdiTgcV7xX

25) .@RepRaulGrijalva Yellowstone grizzlies need connectivity with other bears. Won't happen at this rate! 47% dead. pic.twitter.com/nMks6lCreZ
















38) New mortality data from IGBST report should cause .@USFWS to slam on brakes for grizzly delisting! @barbaraboxer pic.twitter.com/lI8rE5gqa4

39) Grizzlies one of slowest reproducing mammals. Too many females dying could destroy recovery! .@MartinHeinrich pic.twitter.com/YOVTNOrTOe

40) IGBST data showed substantial decline of ~50 bears in population size from 2014-2015. Don't delist! pic.twitter.com/lI8rE5gqa4 .@maziehirono

41) Record number of Yellowstone grizzlies died last year. 11% of population; this year looks like repeat pic.twitter.com/lI8rE5gqa4 .@kpaxnews













51) The man who okay'd killing of #ProfanityPeakPack also leading team on delisting of grizzly bears pic.twitter.com/gizaBOOZg0 .@seattletimes

52) Head of interagency team on grizzlies: "biggest champion of black bears are black bear hunters." Just NO! pic.twitter.com/gizaBOOZg0 

53) Mindset of co-chair on grizzly study team: "biggest champion of mountain lions are mountain lion hunters" pic.twitter.com/gizaBOOZg0

54) Co-Chair of Interagency Grizzly Study Team ok'd killing of #ProfanityPeakPack, known for managing predators. pic.twitter.com/gizaBOOZg0  

55) Why does the guy who ok'd killing of #ProfanityPeakPAck get to say whether protect grizzlies? .@freespeechtv pic.twitter.com/gizaBOOZg0 

56) The man who authorized killing of #ProfanityPeakPack also leading team on delisting of grizzly bears pic.twitter.com/gizaBOOZg0 .@dodo











63) Meet team deciding on grizzly protection: trophy hunter, #ProfanityPeakPack killer, oil/gas company pic.twitter.com/eXmmyhC7eH .@EnviroNews

64) Why are these people the decision-makers on removing grizzlies from Endangered Species List? pic.twitter.com/eXmmyhC7eH .@freespeechtv @cnn

65) Meet the folks involved in removing protections for grizzlies: hunters and oil companies. pic.twitter.com/eXmmyhC7eH .@democracynow @latimes

66) Meet team overseeing grizzly delisting: trophy hunter, #ProfanityPeakPack killer, energy company pic.twitter.com/eXmmyhC7eH .@MotherJones

67) Meet team overseeing grizzly delisting: trophy hunter, #ProfanityPeakPack killer, energy company pic.twitter.com/eXmmyhC7eH .@GloriaDickie

68) Here is the team that gets to decide whether we continue protecting Yellowstone grizzly. pic.twitter.com/eXmmyhC7eH .@mtpublicradio @FLOTUS



69) .@USFWS handpicked peer reviewers then hired oil/gas/mining company to oversee peer review on grizzly delisting! pic.twitter.com/em7XtUuYeX

70) Peer review process for grizzly bear delisting reeks of conflicts of interest, political meddling! .@alfranken pic.twitter.com/em7XtUuYeX

71) Peer review process for grizzly delisting reeks of conflicts of interest, political meddling! .@SenAugustKing pic.twitter.com/em7XtUuYeX

72) How is this ok? Global energy company oversaw peer review for removing grizzly from ESA. .@KCWY13 @timkaine pic.twitter.com/em7XtUuYeX

73) Conflict of Interest: 3M acres by Yellowstone open for mining, fracking if grizzly loses protection .@NPRinskeep pic.twitter.com/em7XtUuYeX

74) How is this ok? Global energy company oversaw peer review for removing grizzly from ESA .@barbaraboxer @Interior pic.twitter.com/em7XtUuYeX

75) .@USGS played politics to hide info that showed grizzly bear delisting not appropriate .@thinkprogress @vox pic.twitter.com/EE7JcSwJvx

76) Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team delayed report by months, final report had glaring omissions .@Sen_JoeManchin pic.twitter.com/EE7JcSwJvx

77) .@USGS delayed annual report, omitted major info bc stats show grizzlies should not be delisted .@freespeechtv pic.twitter.com/EE7JcSwJvx

78) Why did .@USGS delay grizzly bear report by months, then omit several key statistics? .@HuffingtonPost @EcoWatch pic.twitter.com/EE7JcSwJvx

79) Politics, not science! .@USGS delayed by months annual grizzly report, omitted critical info. @conservationmag pic.twitter.com/EE7JcSwJvx

80) Politics, not science, caused .@USGS to delay by months annual grizzly bear report, omit critical info. @UCSUSA pic.twitter.com/EE7JcSwJvx




81) Why oil/gas company, led by ex-Halliburton exec, overseeing peer review on grizzly delisting? .@RepRaulGrijalva pic.twitter.com/8ftKjkP8LM

82) Why is oil/gas company, led by ex-Halliburton exec, overseeing peer review on grizzly delisting? .@karinbrulliard pic.twitter.com/8ftKjkP8LM

83) Energy company has no business overseeing scientific peer review for grizzly delisting .@SenatorCantwell @kgwntv pic.twitter.com/8ftKjkP8LM

84) Energy companies shd not be involved in removing animals from Endangered Species list. Corrupt! .@hillaryclinton pic.twitter.com/8ftKjkP8LM

85) Energy company has no business overseeing scientific peer review for grizzly delisting .@MartinHeinrich @nytimes pic.twitter.com/8ftKjkP8LM

86) Govt agencies delayed annual report by months, final had major omissions. Reeks of political tampering. .@USGS pic.twitter.com/h94kU4iozk 

87) .@USGS delayed IGBST annual report by months, final had major omissions. Political tampering!? .@sensanders pic.twitter.com/h94kU4iozk

88) .@USGS delayed grizzly team report by months, final report had major omissions. Political tampering!? .@tomudall pic.twitter.com/h94kU4iozk

89) Why did .@USGS delay grizzly team report by months? Then omit major info? @barbaraboxer @POTUS @RepRaulGrijalva pic.twitter.com/h94kU4iozk

90) Why did .@USGS delay grizzly team report by months? Then omit major info? @thinkprogress @democracynow @reveal pic.twitter.com/h94kU4iozk

91) Why did .@USGS delay grizzly team report by months? Then omit major info? @RepHuffman @RepCartwright @mj_wright1 pic.twitter.com/h94kU4iozk





92) Per FOIA doc, .@USFWS handpicked "independent" scientists for peer review of grizzly delisting @SecretaryJewell pic.twitter.com/yXulIzGRV6

93) FOIA doc reveals .@USFWS handpicked "independent" scientists for peer review of grizzly delisting! .@Interior pic.twitter.com/yXulIzGRV6

94) FOIA doc shows .@USFWS handpicked "independent" scientists for peer review of grizzly delisting! .@RepLoisCapps pic.twitter.com/yXulIzGRV6

95) Whoa! How is this "independent"? Conflict of interest at .@USFWS over grizzly removal from ESA. @nikkiinthehouse pic.twitter.com/yXulIzGRV6

96) Yet again, .@USFWS engaging in politics not science. Handpicking peer reviewers=conflict of interest @jaredpolis pic.twitter.com/yXulIzGRV6

97) FOIA doc reveals .@USFWS handpicked "independent" scientists for peer review of grizzly delisting! .@sciam pic.twitter.com/yXulIzGRV6


























116) #ClimateChange dealt possible death blow to most important grizzly food -whitebark pine. #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/OnZoMkbHYW

117) #ClimateChange has introduced enormous uncertainty to stability of ecosystem for grizzlies. #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/OnZoMkbHYW

118) #ClimateChange reason alone to never remove Yellowstone grizzly from Endangered Species list #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/0mEzQCTHcx

119) Past decade was hottest on record for Yellowstone area http://bit.ly/2bd0TEj #DontDelistGrizzlies #climatechange pic.twitter.com/lSp6TPa9eG

120) Milder winters could impact food sources as bears wake early from hibernation #DontDelistGrizzlies #climatechange pic.twitter.com/HdEJVK1ITw

121) Whitebark pine in YNP area nearly gone: No amount of science/management can bring back in lifetime #climatechange pic.twitter.com/OnZoMkbHYW

122) W/ quality of habitat eroding from #climatechange, grizzlies need more #PublicLands to roam. #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/GgClwKezkV

123) 80% of the whitebark forest already dead; whitebark pine is 1 of top 4 grizzly food sources #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/FqxXveiRvY



124) Top food source -cutthroat trout- threatened by #ClimateChange, endangering grizz population #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/5H2MC6Z6kL

125) Collapse of key foods (whitebark pine, cutthroat trout) over last few decades=how quickly habitat can deteriorate pic.twitter.com/TqtxPGXLfH

126) Record number of grizzlies dying due to "deteriorating habitat conditions". #climatechange #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/QC9AespQ9d

127) Grizzlies lost key food sources, eating more meat, leads to more conflicts with ranchers, hunters #ClimateChange pic.twitter.com/NES6nJWy2X

128) .@POTUS Grizzlies Threatened by #ClimateChange, Should Remain Protected, Habitat Degraded, Lost Food Sources. pic.twitter.com/nXr2RXyGqb 

129) .@SecretaryJewell Grizzly #Bears Threatened by #ClimateChange, Should Remain Protected, Food Sources Decimated. pic.twitter.com/OnZoMkbHYW

130) .@MotherJones Grizzlies have lost key food sources from #ClimateChange, Shuld Stay Protected pic.twitter.com/FqxXveiRvY #DontDelistGrizzlies

131) .@ClimateProgress Collapse of key foods due to #ClimateChange threatens Yellowstone grizzly bear recovery pic.twitter.com/TqtxPGXLfH 

132) 74% of mature, cone-producing whitebark stands dead in Yellowstone due to #climatechange. #DontDelistGrizzlies pic.twitter.com/eWbOUIJIxw

133) Mother grizzlies who eat pine nuts have more cubs, better survival rates; 74% of nuts gone due to #climatechange pic.twitter.com/eWbOUIJIxw

** If you are on INSTAGRAM, please like, comment or re-gram our posts.







Monday, September 12, 2016

CALL TO ACTION: Political Meddling in Grizzly Delisting




The process for removing GYE grizzly bears from the Endangered Species list stinks! It is rife with conflicts of interest, delayed reports, suppression of information, and deliberate dissemination of misinformation (as we saw last week with the article claiming mortality levels were down when they are at record highs). 

This is not right. This is not how the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work. This week's action aims to garner attention for the blatant political meddling contaminating the delisting process. Please leave Facebook comments, tweet the TweetSheet, send emails and make phone calls.

TWITTER: Here is the TWEETSHEET

FACEBOOK COMMENTS: Please leave a comment on an article on the following pages, expressing your concern that politics are taking precedence over science in the process of delisting grizzly bears. Where possible, share one of our graphics.

1) White House
2) USFWS
3) Raul Grijalva
4) your Senator and/or Representative (click here to find their contact information)
5) Interior

EMAILS: Please email President Obama, Sally Jewell, Dan Ashe and your Senator and Representative telling him or her the following:


I am extremely concerned that a process which is supposed to be driven be science - removing a species from the protections of the Endangered Species Act - has been contaminated by political meddling. First, an oil, gas and mining company has no business overseeing the scientific peer review. Second, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team delayed its released of the 2015 annual report by several months and only produced the final report when pushed to do so by the public and media. Unfortunately, the final report omitted critically important information - statistics on population growth, mortality rate and more. Critics believe that this information was omitted because it does not support the agenda of removing grizzlies from the Endangered Species list. As if that were not sufficient, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, itself, is headed by a former Safari Club lobbyist and an avid hunter who strongly believes in managing predators. Finally, FOIA documents have revealed that the USFWS handpicked "independent" scientists for the peer review. It is clear that this plan is politically motivated and not in accordance with the best available science. Another document obtained through FOIA reveals that Director Dan Ashe felt the same way. This is not how the Endangered Species Act was meant to function. It is time to clean up the conflicts of interest and questionable decisions and follow the best available science. 

PHONE CALLS:

President Obama - 202-456-1111
Secretary Sally Jewell - 202-208-3100 
Director Dan Ashe - 202-208-4717