Grizzlies are ESA success story

The federal government's announcement that the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear population shall be removed from the Endangered Species List is a significant milestone.

Whether it will actually happen remains to be seen. Environmental groups are aligning for litigation that could delay actual delisting for months if not years. Predictably.

One conservation group, however, is saying that it's time to embrace success when it arrives, and allow for a species to be managed and protected without the Endangered Species Act. National Wildlife Federation spokesman David Miller said the act should be used as "emergency room treatment" rather than a long-term management strategy.

We couldn't agree more. The ESA shouldn't be wielded as the cudgel of a perpetual litigation industry, which it has been so far.

There have been lawsuits for every species on the list, it seems, regardless of how apparent it is that the species is recovered. Bald eagles are now widely distributed and considered to be fully recovered, but they are still on the list.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was fully prepared to delist the eagle, but last month, the agency announced that it was postponing its delisting decision because of a court-approved agreement that allows for a final determination no later than June 29. That's right. There's litigation over bald eagles, even though they are clearly recovered, numbering in the thousands across the country.

The announced delisting of an estimated 600 grizzly bears is especially remarkable, considering they are beating the bald eagle to the finish line. They are also ahead of wolves, which now number more than 1,300 in the Northern Rockies. The delisting process is under way for wolves, however, with populations in Montana and Idaho expected to be removed from ESA protection within a year.

The legal arguments against delisting the Yellowstone grizzly population will focus on all the possible pitfalls that await the species once it is delisted. One attorney who specializes in ESA litigation even said delisting is a bad idea because global warming is "shrinking" suitable grizzly bear habitat.

That line of thinking suggests the Endangered Species Act and the federal government will protect grizzly bears from any ill effects that result from climate change.

Not likely.

But that kind of rhetoric is commonly expressed by delisting opponents - that the government is tossing grizzly bears to the wind, with no protections to ensure their survival.

And that's just not the case. There are detailed plans in place to protect the bears and their habitat. In fact, delisting will change very little in terms of how bears are managed.

The federal government's "conservation strategy" calls for even more intense monitoring of the population after delisting, and it identifies about 6 million acres, including Yellowstone Park's 2.2 million acres, as being high-priority bear habitat.

While delisting may someday allow for states to manage a grizzly bear hunt, those hunts will be highly restrictive.

The bottom line is that most of the practical protections for the population will stay in force. Grizzly bears will not whither away.

It's time for the Endangered Species Act to chalk one up in the "win" column.