Aug 3, 2014 file photo of a grizzly in Montana's Glacier National Park
The U.S. government is considering lifting protections for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area, as well for as bruins in the Northwestern area of Montana- home to the largest group of grizzly bears in the country.
The grizzly bears were granted threatened species protection in 1975 due to the hunters and trappers who were exterminating them. In the recent years, under this protection, the grizzly bears have thrived and made a dramatic comeback in areas such as Yellowstone and Glacier National Park. The population of grizzly bears has more than doubled since 1993.
Lifting federal protection of these animals would legalize hunting and many worry that the bears' recovery will take a nosedive without the federal protection like it had in the 1900s.
This case reminds me of the video clip that we watched in our Federalism Unit called the "Wolves at the door," in which the federal government passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and placed gray wolves in the state of Idaho. However, Idaho rejected the wolves and argued that this was a federal abuse of power since they believed the people should be able to decide which animals are allowed in their state. The federal government wouldn't budge as long as the wolves were endangered.
I believe likewise, this decision to either lift the protection or not, is entirely up to the federal government and since these grizzly bears are no longer considered an endangered species in these areas, it is looking like protections will be lifted sooner than later.
What do you guys think? Should the government lift the protection on grizzly bears and allow for the hunting of these animals again?
And do you think that this decision should be solely made by the federal government or by the state of Montana as well?
7 comments:
I strongly believe that this decision should be made by the federal government and the state of Montana. In order to have a functional government, the people also have to feel that they are included in decisions like this one. Personally, I think that lifting protection on grizzly bears would do more harm than good because the hunting rates would increase and only cause more problems for the grizzly bear species. This would only reverse the progress that the government has made with preserving grizzly bear population in Yellowstone and Glacier National Park previously. Also, if hunting was to be legalized, it would promote the fur trade industry. Even if, for example, the state of Montana wants the protection of grizzly bears lifted, they should realize the harm that it causes to not only the bears but the environment they reside in.
I agree that the federal government should make the decision. However, I do not believe that lifting the protection on grizzly bears is a good idea. As Kalena has stated above, lifting the protection would reverse the progress entirely. The whole reason the population became endangered was because of the hunting and habitat loss. Reintroducing these factors would just cause the population to decrease again, and a protection would need to be placed on them again. I find this very pointless.
I also agree that the decision should be made by the government and the state. When the decision is made by the state, people are closer to the laws made and could be more closely associated with the situation, suggesting more awareness. Furthermore, under a government decision there is unity across the nation on the decided situation of the bears. I am against lifting the protections of the grizzly bears and I believe that lifting these protections is a rash decision because these bears were only recently endangered; thus, the bears should have more time to reproduce and increase their population.
I agree with the comments above. It seems the most ideal that the state of Montana would decide whether or not to keep protection of the bears in place. As Allison said, the law impacts their state, therefore, they should have a say in what the law is. At the same time, though, people from Montana are more likely than people from other states like California to be hunters. That means that they might be more inclined to vote for lifting protection. However, others might not approve of the possible dangers the bears face without the law protecting them. So, I definitely agree that the federal government might make a decision that's more beneficial for the country as a whole, but I don't know to what degree the Montana government should be involved.
I think that the government should not lift protections off from grizzly bears since they were previously considered endangered due to hunters and trappers. By not protecting the bears, it'll only hurt them. The government's progress of the protection of the bears will be reversed with an increase in the amount of bears hunted. This will only lead them to be endangered once again. I think that the government should make this a federal decision so that it is placed to benefit the entire country. All animals deserve to be protected rather than left to be harmed for trade purposes. With the protections, less grizzly bears are being harmed and their survival rate increases. With hunting legalized their population will only decline and continue to be harmed. The grizzly bears must be kept protected to keep them safe and prevent extermination.
I think both the state and federal government should have a say in this. As others have said, this will most directly affect Montana so they have the most accurate perspective on how this should be handled. But I also think the federal government should have some involvement because they can make decisions that will benefit the whole country. I think continuing to protect bears is important because so many animals are endangered or extinct because humans have hunted them relentlessly. It is important to protect animals from being hunted in the future.
Like Brooke, I think that the federal and state government should both have their interests considered in this decision. Personally, I don't think the government should lift the protections on grizzly bears, not just because they were a threatened species and the progress made to repopulate them would be useless, but also because it appears the only people benefitted from this are the hunters. Since there is no real need to continue hunting grizzly bears, the protections should not be lifted
Post a Comment