Snowflake Judge BLOCKS Grizzly Bear Hunts Around Yellowstone – Here’s 8 Reasons Why She’s Wrong

Written by K. Walker on August 31, 2018

Two days before the grizzly hunting season was about to start, a judge has halted it in order to make her final decision on whether or not there will be one ‘at a later date.’ Here’s the 411.

It’s been 44 years since grizzly hunting was permitted in the area, and you might just tack on another year to that thanks to Judge Dana Christensen.

The U.S. District Judge’s order came just two days before the grizzly hunting season was set to resume after the ban was put in place due to the declining grizzly bear population.

Wildlife activists and Native American tribes had sued the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over their 2017 decision to lift protections on 700 bears in the Yellowstone National Park region. They have been pushing to halt the reinstatement of the grizzly hunting season in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. They also want the judge to re-classify the bears as a ‘threatened species.’

Trending: WATCH: Melania In A CLASSY & COOL Way Dropkicked Her Critics Into Next Week

They see the decision as a huge victory.

Here are 8 reasons why the Judge’s decision was the wrong one.

1. Her ruling included a statement that considers hunting from the bear’s perspective.

Judge Christensen wrote in her ruling: ‘The threat of death to individual bears posed by the scheduled hunts is sufficient to justify a delay in the state’s hunting seasons.’

That could be a justification for stopping any hunting.

If only Judge Christensen would apply the same logic to say, abortion. Imagine how that would read, ‘The threat of death to individual babies posed by abortion is sufficient to justify a delay in the practice of abortion.

But I digress…

It’s not the judge’s job to consider how the animal is going to feel about being killed, but rather what the impact of permitting or prohibiting hunting of a particular species would do to that species and other species in the region.

This just might be one more example of the damage of the Disney-style anthropomorphism of animals into sentient, rational creatures akin to humans.

2. It looks like a stalling tactic that caves to activists.

Mike Garrity, the executive director for plaintiff Alliance for the Wild Rockies said: ‘We’re thrilled. Now the judge has time to rule without grizzly bears being killed starting Saturday morning.’

It appears that the judge is sympathetic to the anti-hunting crowd and is willing to go against the federal removal of protections from grizzlies to appease those activists. Her hold on the season with a final decision which will come ‘at a later date’ gives the activists exactly what they want — no bears hunted until some distant point in the future.

3. The healthy grizzly population in the area is having an impact on other animal species — and they can pose a threat to humans.

Frequent grizzlies attacks on livestock, the impact bears have on populations of deer and elk as well as the threat grizzlies pose to humans, were cited as reasons for hunting the wild creatures.

In 1975, the grizzly population in Yellowstone had dropped to 136, which was why the species was classified as ‘threatened.’ The population was determined to be ‘successfully recovered’ in 2007. It is now estimated to be around 700, which led to the declassification as a ‘threatened species.’

4. The judge forgot one of the central themes in Disney’s The Lion King.

Despite seeming to be using the perspective of Disney’s Bambi to view hunting, Judge Christensen doesn’t seem to understand the ‘circle of life’ which was a central theme in a different Disney movie, The Lion King. If one population gets out of control, it affects the others.

But Todd Hoese, an accountant and hunter from Gillette, Wyoming, expressed disappointment in Judge Christensen’s ruling and applied for but did not receive a grizzly bear hunting tag.

He said: ‘They’re just looking at it from the bears’ perspective. The way that nature works is a balance and we don’t have that balance. There are too many bears now.’

5. The likelihood of significant harm to the population is unlikely.

Because the grizzly population has rebounded so well, there is very little chance that there would be any significant damage to it by permitting hunting a handful of bears.

Erik Petersen, Wyoming’s senior assistant attorney general suggested the judge leave Wyoming, Montana and Idaho in charge of managing the bears.

He said: ‘The likelihood of any significant harm to the population is essentially nil.’

6. The Fish and Wildlife Service believe that the grizzly bear population in the region is healthy and the threat of extinction is very low.

This judge is dismissing the findings of the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the size of the population.

Department of Justice attorneys said the Fish and Wildlife Service considered all the plaintiffs’ arguments and proceeded with lifting protections because there was no threat of extinction to the bears now or in the foreseeable future.

7. The quota for the number of bears is really, really small.

The number of bears that can be killed is minuscule when compared with the thriving grizzly population.

Idaho’s hunting quota is one bear, whereas Wyoming’s hunt is in two phases, including September 1 when the hunt opens the season in an outlying area with a quota of 12 bears.

Then two weeks later starts the season in prime grizzly habitat near Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. One female or nine males can be killed in those areas.

8. Only a handful of permits are issued.

Thousands had applied for licenses, but only a handful have been given permission to hunt the bears.

Twelve hunters in Wyoming and one in Idaho have been issued licenses out of the thousands who applied.

Source: Daily Mail

This judge really thinks that 13 hunters will do irreparable damage to the grizzly population?

Really?

Or maybe she’s just not concerned about the problems that can arise when the bear population grows and spreads.

She probably has no concept of how hunting and conservation can go hand-in-hand.

Perhaps she should talk to this lady in New Hampshire:

Bear Attacks 71yr. Old Woman INSIDE Her House – The Pics Are Gruesome

That might change her perspective.

Get Doug Giles’ book, Rise, Kill and Eat: A Theology of Hunting from Genesis to Revelation today!

If a person looked to Scripture and paid particular attention to the passages within the Bible that address the topic of hunting, then they’d walk away thinking not only is hunting animals tolerated but it is endorsed by God. And that’s exactly what this little book is about: proving that God, from Genesis to Revelation, is extremely cool with hunters and hunting. I’ll go out on a biblical limb and claim right off the bat that you cannot show me, through the balance of the Bible, that the God of the Scripture is against the responsible killing and the grilling of the animals He created. ~Doug Giles

In his killer new book RISE, KILL & EAT: A Theology of Hunting From Genesis to Revelation Doug carries on with his courageous war against the lunatic fringe who dare recommend Bambi solutions to the annual production of edible wildlife. –Ted Nugent

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, occasional Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.