Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. State of Wyoming

Opinion by Judge TALLMAN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge THOMAS.

*1019 OPINION

This case involves one of the American West’s most iconic wild animals in one of its most iconic landscapes. The grizzly-bear (Ursus arctos hombilis) — so named for the gray-tipped hairs that give it a “grizzled” appearance — is both revered and feared as a symbol of wildness, independence, and massive strength. But while grizzlies may inspire some sense of human vulnerability, history has shown that it is the bears who have often been the more vulnerable ones. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, widespread hunting, trapping, poisoning, and habitat destruction associated with American expansion decimated the grizzly population in the West and relegated the bears to increasingly remote and rugged terrain. Since then, their survival has depended both on their own ability to adapt to their surroundings and on human ability to adapt to their presence. These seemingly irreconcilable tensions have come to a head before us in this appeal.

The Yellowstone region of northwestern Wyoming, southern Montana, and northeastern Idaho is home to a grizzly population, two popular…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) *1033 did not, in its delisting rule, 1 articulate a rational connection between the record data and its determination that whitebark pine declines were not likely to threaten the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Unlike the majority, I would hold that the agency also erred in concluding the Yellowstone grizzly is not threatened by “the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (a)(1)(D) (“Factor D”). 2 Therefore, I would affirm the district court’s decision in its entirety.

I

The Service did not fulfill its regulatory responsibility in determining that existing regulatory mechanisms were sufficient to protect the Yellowstone grizzly. Not only did the Service rely on voluntary, rather than “regulatory,” measures, but it did not explain adequately how existing regulatory mechanisms actually prevent grizzly bear mortality. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen's Ass’ns v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION, 

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER SERVHEEN, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator; H. DALE HALL, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director; KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior; U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

No. 09-36100 Defendants, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL;  D.C. No. 9:07-cv-00134-

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL

DWM

FOUNDATION; NATIONAL WILDLIFE

FEDERATION; IDAHO WILDLIFE

FEDERATION; MONTANA WILDLIFE

FEDERATION; WYOMING WILDLIFE

FEDERATION; STATE OF MONTANA;

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH,

WILDLIFE AND PARKS,

Defendant-Intervenors, and

STATE OF WYOMING,

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. 

20325 20326 GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION v. WYOMING

GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION, 

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER SERVHEEN, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator; H. DALE HALL, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director; KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior; U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

No. 10-35043 Defendants, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION;  D.C.…