A US judge has ordered federal protections to be restored for grizzly bears in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
Wyoming and Idaho had been on the cusp of allowing hunters to kill up to 23 bears this autumn.
US District Judge Dana Christensen had twice delayed the hunts, and the latest order blocking them was due to expire later this week.
The hunts would have been the first in US outside Alaska since 1991.
Judge Christensen wrote in his ruling that the case was "not about the ethics of hunting". Rather, he said, it was about whether federal officials adequately considered threats to the species' long-term recovery when they lifted protections for more than 700 bears living around Yellowstone National Park.
In the judge's view, the answer was no.
He noted that an estimated 50,000 bears once roamed the mainland US and said it would be "simplistic at best and disingenuous at worst" not to consider the status of grizzlies outside the Yellowstone region, one of the few areas where they have bounced back.
State and federal officials reacted with disappointment. Wyoming Gov Matt Mead said the ruling provided further evidence of flaws in the Endangered Species Act and the need for Congress to make changes.
"Grizzly bear recovery should be viewed as a conservation success story," Gov Mead said in a statement.
A bid to remove protections for the region's grey wolves ran into similar legal problems last decade.
In that case, Congress intervened in 2011 to strip safeguards from the animals through legislation, opening the way to public wolf hunts.
Pressure to lift protections on bears and allow hunting has increased in recent years as the number of conflicts between bears and people increased.
Most of those conflicts involve attacks on livestock but occasionally bears attack people, such as a Wyoming hunting guide killed earlier this month by a pair of grizzly bears.
The ruling marks a victory for wildlife advocates and Native American tribes that sued when the Interior Department last year revoked federal protections.
They argued that the animals face continued threats from climate change and loss of habitat.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel