+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Terrestrial Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-terrestrial-wild-animals)
+---- Forum: Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-carnivorous-and-omnivores-animals-excluding-felids)
+----- Forum: Bears (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-bears)
+----- Thread: Grizzlies / North American brown bears (/topic-grizzlies-north-american-brown-bears)
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Spalea - 06-27-2020
Thomas Vilayan: " Grizzly bear, Alaska "
Thomas Vilayan: " Extreme fear can neither fight nor fly! "
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Sully - 07-09-2020
Yellowstone Grizzlies to Stay on Endangered List
MISSOULA, Mont. —Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration and state of Wyoming’s appeal of a 2018 decision restoring endangered species protections for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears. The original decision halted states’ planned trophy hunts in the ecosystem, which would have harmed other imperiled populations of grizzly bears.
WildEarth Guardians, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center, one of the plaintiffs and victors of the original lawsuit, played a central role in the appeal process, one of the first COVID-19 “virtual court hearing” scenarios.
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana totals about 728 animals, up from its historic low of 136 when endangered species protections were enacted in 1975. In the original case, opponents of federal protections for grizzly bears argued that protections were no longer necessary and that a sport hunting season to effectively manage down the population was justified despite the fact that the population represents only a fraction of its historical abundance, and has yet to achieve connectivity to neighboring populations near Glacier National Park and elsewhere.
The recovery of other grizzly bear populations depends heavily on inter-population connectivity and genetic exchange. Absent endangered species protections, dispersing grizzlies essential to species recovery would have to pass through a killing zone outside Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks where Wyoming and Idaho rushed to approve trophy hunts.
“Grizzlies require continued protection under federal law until the species as a whole is rightfully recovered,” said Matthew Bishop, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “The best available science says not only are grizzly bears still recovering, but they also need our help to bounce back from an extinction threat humans caused in the first place. Misrepresenting the facts to promote killing threatened grizzly bears for fun is disgraceful. I’m glad the judges didn’t fall for it.”
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the original ruling that the delisting was premature, did not rely on the best available science, and improperly failed to analyze the impact killing grizzlies just outside the safety of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks would have on other imperiled populations in the lower 48 states. The Ninth Circuit wrote: “…because there are no concrete, enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure long-term genetic health of the Yellowstone grizzly, the district court correctly concluded that the 2017 Rule is arbitrary and capricious in that regard. Remand to the FWS is necessary for the inclusion of adequate measures to ensure long term protection [p. 45].”
“WildEarth Guardians applauds the decision of the 9th Circuit Court—a triumph of science over politics—in ensuring that Yellowstone grizzly bears are allowed to truly recover and thrive,” said Sarah McMillan, conservation director for WildEarth Guardians. “Grizzly bears are an iconic species whose very existence is intertwined with the concept of endangered species protection in the United States. This decision solidifies the belief of numerous wildlife advocates and native tribes that protecting grizzly bears should be based upon science and the law and not the whims of special interest groups, such as those who want to trophy hunt these great bears.”
Grizzlies in the Yellowstone region remain threatened by dwindling food sources, climate change, small population size, isolation, habitat loss and fragmentation, and high levels of human-caused mortality. The Yellowstone population is isolated and has yet to connect to bears elsewhere in the U.S., including to bears in and around Glacier National Park. Grizzlies also have yet to reclaim key historic habitats, including the Bitterroot Range along the Montana-Idaho border.
Hunted, trapped, and poisoned to near extinction, grizzly bear populations in the contiguous U.S. declined drastically from nearly 50,000 bears to only a few hundred by the 1930s. In response to the decline, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, a move that likely saved them from extinction. The species has since struggled to hang on, with only roughly 1,800 currently surviving in the lower 48 states. Grizzlies remain absent from nearly 98 percent of their historic range.
*This image is copyright of its original author
A mother grizzly bear with cubs. Photo by S
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Sully - 08-19-2020
Interesting talk about grizzly bear ecology. Key points include:
They manage to avoid conflict with humans by being nocturnal. Populations that aren't nocturnal do much worse when it comes to individuals that reach 10 years of age than nocturnal populations, and nocturnality corresponds with the amount of human disturbance to wilderness. There is also what is called an "ecological trap" where there is more food in human areas (road kill, discarded food, etc), but the conflict puts bears at a disadvantage. Furthermore, immigration needed to sustain the population positively correlates with the amount of human influence.
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Spalea - 08-20-2020
Michel Zoghzoghi: " Ursus Arctos Horribilis "
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Spalea - 08-28-2020
Daniel Lindhardt: " Wandering through the monochromatic landscape, she wondered what she did to make the rainbow gods angry. Then she realized she’s just color blind. Now she’s not sure what’s more disappointing. "
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - BorneanTiger - 09-04-2020
Not a pleasant sight, but an Alaskan bear that was reported to weigh 1,200 pounds (544.3108 kg), 1914–1915. Image by E. Lester Jones, in the digital collection of the Freshwater and Marine Image Bank: https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/fishimages/id/49101, https://content.lib.washington.edu/fishweb/index.html
[attachment=4160]
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Spalea - 09-13-2020
Daniel Lindhardt: " Every once in a while you need to take a walk in the snow storm to make sure its not powdered sugar spilled by God’s sloppy, new kitchen guy. "
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Spalea - 09-20-2020
Nelis Wolmarans: " One of the best experiences, the Grizzly Bears of @greatbearlodge in Canada’s #greatbearrainforest. Images taken on a @travel_jar photo safari! "
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Pckts - 04-14-2021
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Pckts - 04-18-2021
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - BorneanTiger - 08-23-2021
‘Mind blowing’: Grizzly bear DNA maps onto Indigenous language families: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/mind-blowing-grizzly-bear-dna-maps-indigenous-language-families, https://worldnewsera.com/news/science/mind-blowing-grizzly-bear-dna-maps-onto-indigenous-language-families/, https://novalanguages.com/mind-blowing-grizzly-bear-dna-maps-onto-indigenous-language-families/
By Rachel Fritts, August 13, 2021, 1:25 PM
Grizzly bears in the central coastal region of British Columbia; credit: Michelle Valberg
[attachment=6361]
The bears and Indigenous humans of coastal British Columbia have more in common than meets the eye. The two have lived side by side for millennia in this densely forested region on the west coast of Canada. But it’s the DNA that really stands out: A new analysis has found that the grizzlies here form three distinct genetic groups, and these groups align closely with the region’s three Indigenous language families.
It’s a “mind-blowing” finding that shows how cultural and biological diversity in the region are intertwined, says Jesse Popp, an Indigenous environmental scientist at the University of Guelph who was not involved with the work.
The research began purely as a genetics study. Grizzlies had recently begun to colonize islands along the coast of British Columbia, and scientists and Indigenous wildlife managers wanted to know why they were making this unprecedented move. Luckily, in 2011, the region’s five First Nations set up a collaborative “bear working group” to answer exactly that sort of question. Lauren Henson, a conservation scientist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, partnered with working group members from the Nuxalk, Haíɫzaqv, Kitasoo/Xai’xais, Gitga’at, and Wuikinuxv Nations to figure out which mainland grizzlies were most genetically similar to the island ones.
Henson used bear hair samples that researchers involved with the working group had collected over the course of 11 years. To get the samples, the team went to remote areas of British Columbia—some of them only accessible via helicopter—and piled up leaves and sticks, covering them with a concoction of dogfish oil or a fish-based slurry. It “smells really, really terrible to us, but is intriguing to bears,” Henson says.
The researchers then surrounded this tempting pile with a square of barbed wire, which harmlessly snagged tufts of fur—and the DNA it contains—when bears came to check out the smell. In all, the group collected samples from 147 bears over about 23,500 square kilometres—an area roughly the size of Vermont.
Henson and her colleagues then used microsatellite DNA markers—regions of the genome that change frequently compared with other sections—to determine how related the bears were to each other. The scientists found three distinct genetic groups of bears living in the study area, they report this month in Ecology and Society: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss3/art7/
DNA analysis reveals three distinct genetic groups of grizzly bears, which align with the boundaries between Indigenous language families (grey lines). L. H. Henson et al., Ecology and Society, 26 (3): 7, 2021:
[attachment=6362]
But they could not find any obvious physical barriers keeping them apart. The boundaries between genetic groupings didn’t correspond to the location of waterways or especially rugged or snow-covered landscapes. It’s possible, Henson says, that the bears remain genetically distinct not because they can’t travel, but because the region is so resource-rich that they haven’t needed to do so to meet their needs.
One thing did correlate with the bears’ distribution, however: Indigenous language families. “We were looking at language maps and noticed the striking visual similarity,” Henson says. When the researchers analysed the genetic interrelatedness of bears both within and outside the area’s three language families, they found that grizzly bears living within a language family’s boundaries were much more genetically similar to one another than to bears living outside them.
The findings don’t surprise Jenn Walkus, a Wuikinuxv scientist who co-authored the study. Growing up in a remote community called Rivers Inlet, she saw first-hand that humans and bears have a lot of the same needs in terms of space, food, and other resources. It would make sense, she says, for them to settle in the same areas—ones with a steady supply of salmon, for instance. This historic interrelatedness means Canada should manage key resources with both bears and people in mind, she says. The Wuikinuxv Nation, for example, is looking into reducing its annual salmon harvest to support the bears’ needs, she notes: https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mcf2.10171
Lauren Eckert, a conservation scientist at the University of Victoria who was not involved with the study, agrees that the findings could have important implications for managing the area’s bears. It’s “fascinating” and “really shocking” work, she says. The resources that shaped grizzly bear distribution in the region clearly also shaped humans, Eckert says, “which I think reinforces the idea that local knowledge and localized management are really critical.”
Posted in: People & Events, Plants & Animals, DOI: 10.1126/science.abl9306
Rachel Fritts is a News intern at Science. Her work has also appeared in The Guardian, Ars Technica, Audubon, and other outlets.
RE: Grizzlies / North American brown bears - Matias - 03-08-2023
Service to initiate grizzly bear status review in the Northern Continental Divide and Greater Yellowstone ecosystems
Quote:DENVER — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed the initial review of three petitions filed to remove the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower 48 States from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act in certain ecosystems.
The Service finds two of these petitions present substantial information indicating the grizzly bear in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) may qualify as their own distinct population segment and may warrant removal from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. The Service will now initiate a comprehensive status review of the grizzly bear in the NCDE and GYE based on the best available scientific and commercial data available to inform a 12-month finding. If those findings result in proposing one or more DPSs for delisting, the Service will consider those in the context of the ongoing recovery for the rest of the population in the larger listed entity.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Image Details
The Service finds the third petition to remove ESA protections for the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states does not present substantial, credible information to warrant further action.
Grizzly bear recovery and conservation are complex issues, requiring coordination among federal agencies, states, Tribes, and other stakeholders. The Service appreciates the states historical commitments and partnerships to recover bears, particularly through conflict prevention efforts that have been effective in reducing human-caused mortality. However, the impact of recently enacted state laws and regulations affecting these two grizzly bear populations is of concern and needs to be evaluated. We will fully evaluate these and all other potential threats, and associated state regulatory mechanisms, in detail when we conduct the status assessments and make the 12-month findings.
Today’s announcement comes as the ESA turns 50 years old in 2023. Throughout the year, the Department of the Interior will celebrate the importance of the ESA in preventing the extinction of imperiled species, promoting the recovery of wildlife, and conserving the habitats upon which they depend. The ESA has been highly effective and credited with saving 99% of listed species from extinction. Thus far, more than 100 species of plants and animals have been delisted based on recovery or reclassified from endangered to threatened based on improved conservation status, and hundreds more species are stable or improving thanks to the collaborative actions of Tribes, federal agencies, state and local governments, conservation organizations and private citizens.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Substantial 90-day findings represent a relatively low bar, requiring only that the petitioner provide information that the petitioned action may be warranted. The next steps include an in-depth status review and analyses using the best available science and information to arrive at a 12-month finding on whether the removal of ESA protections for grizzly bears in the NCDE and GYE are warranted. If so, removing ESA protections would then be initiated through a separate rulemaking process, with additional public notice and comment.
The public can play an essential role by submitting relevant information, particularly new scientific and commercial data published since the 2021 5-year status review. This information will inform the in-depth status review and can be submitted through regulations.gov: Docket Number: FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150, beginning February 6, 2023, upon publication in the Federal Register and will include details on how to submit comments.
The 90-day finding and petition review forms associated with this announcement are now available for public inspection.
Visit the Service online to learn more about grizzly bears and the ESA petition process. Additional questions and answers can also be found on our website: Q&As: 90-day finding on grizzly bear petitions.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three Petitions To Delist the Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48 States
A Proposed Rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 02/06/2023
Quote:SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce three 90-day findings on petitions to delist the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States ( Ursus arctos horribilis) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). One petition requests delisting the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States, and the other two petitions request delisting populations in two specific ecosystems, the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Based on our review, we find that the petitions pertaining to the two ecosystems present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate a status review to determine whether the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are requesting new scientific and commercial data and other information regarding the grizzly bear in the NCDE and GYE and factors that may affect its status in those ecosystems, including the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address threats now and in the foreseeable future. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month petition finding, which will address whether or not the petitioned actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act. If we ultimately do find that one or more of the petitioned actions is warranted and proceed to propose to delist one or more distinct population segments (DPSs), we will consider the effects of any proposed delisting on the ongoing recovery of the larger listed entity of grizzly bears. We also found that a petition to delist the grizzly bear in the lower-48 states on the basis of it not being a valid listable entity did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted; therefore, we will take no further action on that petition.
Revisões de status: Se você tiver novos dados científicos ou comerciais ou outras informações sobre o status ou ameaças ao urso pardo no NCDE e GYE ou em seus habitats, particularmente novas informações disponíveis desde nosso status de 5 anos em 30 de março de 2021 revisão, forneça esses dados ou informações por um dos seguintes métodos:
(1) Eletronicamente: Acesse o Portal Federal eRulemaking: https://www.regulations.gov . Na caixa de pesquisa, digite FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150, que é o número do protocolo para esta ação. Em seguida, clique no botão “Pesquisar”. Depois de encontrar o documento correto, você pode enviar informações clicando em “Comentar”. Se suas informações couberem na caixa de comentários fornecida, use este recurso de https://www.regulations.gov , pois é mais compatível com nossos procedimentos de revisão de informações. Se você anexar suas informações como um documento separado, nosso formato de arquivo preferido é o Microsoft Word. Se você anexar vários comentários (como cartas de formulário), nosso formato preferido é uma planilha no Microsoft Excel.
(2) Por cópia impressa: Envie por correio dos EUA para: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150, US Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041 -3803.
Solicitamos que você envie informações apenas pelos métodos descritos acima. Qualquer informação que recebermos durante nossa revisão de status será considerada e publicaremos todas as informações que recebermos em https://www.regulations.gov . Isso geralmente significa que publicaremos qualquer informação pessoal que você nos fornecer.
PARA MAIORES INFORMAÇÕES CONTACTAR:
Hilary Cooley, coordenadora de recuperação do urso pardo, escritório de recuperação do urso pardo, telefone: 406-243-4903, e-mail: [email protected] . Indivíduos nos Estados Unidos que são surdos, surdocegos, com deficiência auditiva ou com deficiência de fala podem discar 711 (TTY, TDD ou TeleBraille) para acessar os serviços de retransmissão de telecomunicações. Indivíduos fora dos Estados Unidos devem usar os serviços de retransmissão oferecidos em seu país para fazer chamadas internacionais para o ponto de contato nos Estados Unidos.
An opportunity for those who have elements to contribute.