Japan and the Killing of Elephants


Sometimes the word ivory feels a little too objective for me. Ivory is actually an elephant’s tusk which they use because it’s theirs to use. It’s essential to their survival. Tusks are used for defense, offense, digging, lifting objects, gathering food, and stripping bark to eat from trees. They also protect the sensitive trunk, which is tucked between them when the elephant charges. In times of drought, elephants dig water holes in dry riverbeds by using their tusks, feet, and trunk.

It’s unfortunate that somewhere down the line somebody figured out that these tusks can be harvested from an elephant by killing it, and that the “tusk” can be carved into trinkets, jewellery, piano keys, chopsticks etc…. But you have to kill the elephant to get the tusk. That’s just the way it works.

brent-japan-ivory-nationalgeographic_1494083.adapt.1900.1.jpgAbout 100 years ago there were approximately 10 million elephants in Africa. According to…

View original post 252 more words

Take action against horse slaughter in Washington

Tuesday's Horse

Fund Horse, US Flag and Capitol Dome. Vivian Grant Farrell. Fund Horse, US Flag and Capitol Dome. Vivian Grant Farrell.

WE ASK YOU to please contact Congress in support of the SAFE Act — HR 113 and S 1706.

First, find out if your US Representative and both of your US Senators have co-sponsored these bills. Then take action!

Thank them if they have co-sponsored and ask them to do everything they can to help get the SAFE Act passed. If they have not, ask them to please do so right away.

Here are links to both the House and the Senate co-sponsors.

115th Congress (2017-2018)

US House of Representatives
SAFE Act HR 113 Co-Sponsors »

US Senate
SAFE Act S 1706 Co-Sponsors »

Don’t know who they are?

Locate your Member on-line:

US House of Representatives: www.house.gov
US Senate: www.senate.gov

OR another way to find your US Representative, enter your zip code (including +4) in…

View original post 376 more words

Belgian Students Commemorate 100 Years By Restoring Graves of WW1 Soldiers «TwistedSifter


Belgian students commemorate 100 years by restoring graves of ww1 soldiers 2 Belgian Students Commemorate 100 Years By Restoring Graves of WW1 Soldiers

© Benny Proot

To commemorate 100 years since the end of World War I; Belgian students cleaned, repainted and restored 250 graves spread over 5 cemeteries in Oostkamp and surrounding municipalities.

The idea was to honour and remember the brave soldiers of World War I, and ensure that their identification and data remains clearly legible for all visitors wishing to pay their respects.

The pupils who volunteered for the effort were art students currently enrolled in painting classes.

picture of the day button Belgian Students Commemorate 100 Years By Restoring Graves of WW1 Soldiers

twistedsifter on facebook Belgian Students Commemorate 100 Years By Restoring Graves of WW1 Soldiers


Tags: · belgium, cemetery, painting, restoration, tribute, war, world war 1

How to stop robocalls, scams and phone spam | CREDO Mobile Blog


Kleptomaniac Cat Won’t Stop Stealing Vancouver Neighbors’ Stuff

Kleptomaniac Cat Won’t Stop Stealing Vancouver Neighbors’ Stuff
Stephen Messenger
8-10 minutes

This is Bella — a long-haired tabby cat with a very sweet and affectionate spirit. For the past 10 years, Bella has been a delightful companion to her owner, Shawn Bell, simply by being her loving self.

Not long ago, however, she began to reveal one not-so-positive aspect of her feline personality.
Shawn R. Bell

Turns out, Bella’s a thief.
Shawn R. Bell

Bella’s foray into a life of crime seemed to have begun spontaneously last summer. One day, much to Bell’s surprise, he noticed his cat arriving to their home in Vancouver, Canada, carrying a sock. The next day, she brought home another. The day after that, yet more socks.

On the fourth day, Bella came in carrying a child’s drawing, apparently just to mix things up a bit.

Here’s a photo of the cat’s first haul:

Shawn R. Bell

Where those items had come from was anyone’s guess, though Bell was sure of one thing: They weren’t his. Bella had presumably stolen them while out on her evening prowls. And she didn’t stop there.

That summer, Bell filled half a garbage bag with purloined clothes. But in recent months, Bella’s thieving ways have only increased.
Shawn R. Bell

“She used to just come home with one piece of clothing per night,” Bell told The Dodo. “Now she is coming home with two or three a night — or more.”

And all those stolen clothes have been really piling up.

Shawn R. Bell

Bell has posted signs around his apartment building in hopes of reuniting the garments with their rightful owners, but to no avail.

He’s been piling them up on a chair outside his place, just in case someone recognizes their stuff.
Shawn R. Bell

The whole thing has Bell feeling sorta guilty — and a little uncomfortable.

“It sucks to have to keep buying clothes if they keep going missing,” he said. “Then there is the issue of the undergarments and her starting to make me look a bit weird.”

That’s right. Bella’s been stealing people’s unmentionables, too.

Shawn R. Bell

Bell hopes that, as word spreads about his cat’s ill-gotten gains, the person or persons Bella has been stealing from will come forward to reclaim their laundry.

The cat, meanwhile, has yet to see the error in her saddling her owner with stolen goods.

“I think she’s proud of herself,” Bell said. “But she’s not picking the right size or the right gender for me.”

Still, Bell admits he adores Bella regardless.
Shawn R. Bell

“She’s my girl no matter how bad her behavior is,” Bell said. “I guess she has my unconditional love, even though she’s a kleptomaniac.”


What Caused Nearly 50 PetSmart Grooming Deaths?


Since 2008, there have been 47 documented cases of dogs dying during or after a PetSmart grooming appointment in 14 states, according to a disturbing new report published Sept. 20 on NJ.com. The number of deaths is probably even higher, since dog grooming is an unregulated industry.

After the December 2017 death of an English bulldog named Scruffles at the PetSmart in Flemington, NJ, reporters Sophie Nieto-Muñoz and Alex Napoliello began a six-month investigation into the company. They reviewed lawsuits, media reports and veterinary records, and interviewed 100 pet owners as well as PetSmart employees, lawyers, grooming experts and veterinarians.

The interviews with the owners of dogs who died as a result of being groomed at PetSmart are heartbreaking. Among them are Nick Pomilio, who in February 2017 took his English bulldog, Capone, to a store in the Philadelphia area for what should have been a simple nail trim.

The appointment lasted nearly an hour, instead of the usual 15 minutes. Afterward, Capone was unable to walk, so store employees wheeled him in a shopping cart to Pomilio’s car. Capone died on the way home.

“I’ll never forget that last look he gave me,” Pomilio told NJ.com, crying at the memory. “You don’t take the dog to get its nails clipped and it winds up dead as a doornail.”

PetSmart Response to Grooming Deaths

PetSmart refused to answer any questions for the report, but insisted in a response that it has “the highest grooming safety standards in the industry.”

The company refuted the number and cause of the dog deaths. It said it had no records of grooming some of the dogs mentioned in the report, while other dogs may have had underlying health issues that contributed to their deaths. “Any assertion that there is a systemic problem is false and fabricated,” it stated.

So, how many dogs have actually died, according to PetSmart’s official records? Although one of the company’s stated core values is transparency, it will not release the numbers.

Most of the documented deaths – 32 of them – occurred in 2015 or later. It’s probably no coincidence that PetSmart was bought by the private equity firm, BC Partners, in 2015. Since then, according to some longtime employees, there’s been growing pressure to increase the number of dogs groomed each day.

The causes of these deaths are difficult to prove, partly because of nondisclosure agreements signed by PetSmart customers and confidentiality agreements signed by pet owners who reached court settlements with PetSmart. These are some of the potential reasons cited by the NJ.com report:

Nearly half the dogs were English bulldogs and other short-nosed breeds and mixes that can have difficulty breathing in stressful situations and hot environments, such as a dryer.
Trainees with little experience are sometimes put to work due to short staffing.
Groomers, pressured to meet sales quotas, believe there is retaliation for speaking up about safety issues.

In response to media attention to the death of Scruffles, PetSmart announced an action plan for improvement that went into effect in February. The company said an independent task force of grooming industry experts would review its training and safety standards. It would install cameras in grooming salons and and hold open houses, so pet owners could meet groomers and inspect the facilities. The company would offer specialized care for short-nosed breeds.

Despite these promises, one month later, a corgi named Abby died during a grooming appointment at the PetSmart in Toms River, NJ. An employee called Abby’s owner, Chuck Crawford, and coldly told him his beloved dog was dead and where to pick up her body.

Pet owners might want to consider Crawford’s pledge. “I’ll never take my dog to a PetSmart or Petco or any of them ever again,” he told NJ.com in April. “I’ll give them a bath in my garage.”

How to Find a Safe Groomer

You may be surprised that, unlike beauticians and manicurists who work on humans, pet groomers are not required to be certified or licensed (aside from a business license) in any U.S. state. Pet groomers are regulated in Miami and New York City, but there are currently no statewide or federal laws regulating this industry.

Due to this lack of regulation, “there’s a lack of transparency of safety records, enforced standard training and little public accounting when things go wrong,” according to the NJ.com report. “Causes of death can be hard to prove, lawyers are hesitant to take cases and, because pets are considered property, owners can recoup very little money in court. As a result, exactly how many pets die, and why, remains largely unknown.”

To ensure your pet doesn’t become a statistic, the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other animal welfare groups recommend you ask a groomer the following questions before leaving your pet in their care:

Ask if the groomer has completed a training program and belongs to any professional groups, such as the National Dog Groomers Association of America.
Make sure the groomer has several years of experience and can provide references.
Check out the grooming facility to see if it looks and smells clean, is well-lit and the cages are the appropriate size.


Take Action!

Please join more than 76,000 people who have signed this Care2 petition demanding a temporary halt to all PetSmart grooming until the company meets safer pet grooming standards.     https://nackpets.wordpress.com/2018/04/10/petition-close-petsmart-grooming-too-many-dogs-are-dying-there/

If you want to make a difference on an issue you find deeply troubling, you, too, can create a Care2 petition, and use this handy guide to get started. You’ll find Care2’s vibrant community of activists ready to step up and help you.

Photo credit: KaraSuva

Live Animals Shouldn’t Be Mascots — Save Mike the Tiger Now

Live Animals Shouldn’t Be Mascots — Save Mike the Tiger N

by: Care2 Team
recipient: LSU President F. King Alexander

98,947 SUPPORTERS – 100,000 GOAL

For the past few weeks, students all across the country have been heading back to school to embark on a brand new semester. But at Louisiana State University (LSU), the first day of school wasn’t just for students — it also marked the first day for Mike VII, the school’s most recent live mascot.

Please sign this petition if you believe animals should be free, not held captive to be used as mascots.

Mike VII isn’t the first tiger mascot LSU has used. In fact, he’s the seventh tiger — hence the name. His predecessor died last year from terminal cancer after living his last years confined in a limited space only to be allowed outside for display at football games.

While the university has made efforts to improve the quality of the tiger’s enclosure, increasing its size and adding a variety of outdoor activities, it is cruel to sentence a tiger to such captivity. Animals are not here for our amusement.

Please sign this petition urging Louisiana State University to end the use of live tigers as mascots and release Mike the Tiger now.Photo credit: Facebook

Sign Petition


98,947 supporters

Frédéric N.


a minute ago


Maria W.


2 minutes ago


Gerda A.


2 minutes ago


Sylvia F.


3 minutes ago


Marie M.


4 minutes ago


Johann H.


6 minutes ago


Debbie P.


6 minutes ago


Judy L.

Nova Scotia

7 minutes ago


Dachea R.


8 minutes ago


Tricia T.


9 minutes ago


Valerie L.


10 minutes ago


Evelyn E.


11 minutes ago


Josh C.

Newfoundland and Labrador

15 minutes ago


Krystal P.


16 minutes ago


Bethany B.

United Kingdom

16 minutes ago


Graeson V.


19 minutes ago



United Kingdom

19 minutes ago


Maricela L.


20 minutes ago


Abril F.


20 minutes ago


Ronny M.


21 minutes ago


Melissa Q.


22 minutes ago


Lore G.

New Jersey

23 minutes ago


Lisa T.


24 minutes ago


DeAnn K.


24 minutes ago




25 minutes ago


Liz P.


25 minutes ago


Magdalena L.


25 minutes ago


Adriana B.


25 minutes ago


Carmella C.


29 minutes ago


Aniruddha B.


30 minutes ago


Bob R.


30 minutes ago


Erica M.

New York

31 minutes ago


Tamm F.


31 minutes ago


Crystal B.

Rhode Island

33 minutes ago


Ritq M.


35 minutes ago


maite s.


37 minutes ago


Lucy V.

New York

38 minutes ago


Sophie K.


41 minutes ago


Suzan K.


41 minutes ago


Nan H.


41 minutes ago


Anna Giovanna C.


42 minutes ago




43 minutes ago


Kristy H.

New South Wales

43 minutes ago


marcia s.


44 minutes ago


Rebecca W.


an hour ago


Denise H.


an hour ago


Irenilda Lopes S.


an hour ago


mariaelena a.


an hour ago


Marjorie F.


an hour ago


Patricia D.


an hour ago


Carole M.


an hour ago


Sign Petition


Live Animals Shouldn’t Be Mascots — Save Mike the Tiger Now

Are Plant-Eaters Smarter and More Empathetic Than Meat-Eaters?

Are Plant-Eaters Smarter and More Empathetic Than Meat-Eaters?
Independent Media Institute
10-13 minutes

By Matthew Ponsford

Human, monkey, pig.

Wrapped inside the giant magnetic coil of an magnetic imaging resonance (MRI) scanner, three silent animal videos flash up and then disappear in front of a test subject’s eyes.

Each animal moves their mouth, contorting into shapes, which could be speaking, or not.

Five years ago, in the spring of 2013, a total of 60 subjects took turns to face functional MRI scans, a technique giving new insights in the workings of the mind, which feeds out images of brain slices showing when mental activity fills areas of the brain with oxygen or empties them out.

Twenty meat-eaters, 19 vegetarians and 21 vegans were put to the test.

Analyzing the results, the team led by Italian neuroscientist Massimo Filippi aimed to figure out if the three groups’ brains responded differently to these videos. Filippi’s previous study had tested whether people with different diets responded more or less strongly to animals that appeared to be in pain. But he wanted to find out something different, said Maria Rocca, another scientist on that team.

“Processing and understanding actions performed with the mouth by other individuals contribute to infer[ing] other people’s emotional states and intentions, which is a hallmark of social interaction,” explained Rocca. Roughly speaking, they wanted to know if meat-eaters’ and vegetarians’ brains were attempting to understand what the animals were trying to say.

Among their findings of the paper, called The ‘Vegetarian Brain,’ there were striking differences. On almost every area of the brain examined—parts associated with empathy, lip reading, comprehension—there were discernible variations between those who ate meat and those who didn’t.

In certain brain areas associated with empathy, meat eaters’ brains responded less to seeing humans make speech-like movement, echoing findings from other tests that showed increased activity in empathy circuits among people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons.

But figuring out where the human brain reacts was the easy part. The hard part: what—if anything—does it tell us about who we are?

Viral Gold

Compare the qualities of meat-eaters and vegetarians and, as far viral internet content goes, you’ve got gold. If it shows eating meat is better for your IQ, that’s gold. If it shows vegetarians are happier—pure gold. If it shows “aggressive” vegans are harming the cause, that’s gold.

Barely a month goes by without some new study making a claim about the link between meat consumption and human qualities. While there’s little doubt left that a vegetarian diet would be better for the environment and (generally speaking) better for our health, there’s less to say what it does to ourselves, or shows about the people we already are.

Trash science is a pound-a-penny, and there are few examples reaching the status that experts would see as providing real insight. Trace back any listicle on a vegan blog or YouTuber’s rant about vegetarians’ greater caring credentials, and you’re likely to find just a handful of trustworthy tests. Again and again, this small collection of science papers resurfaces.

Vegetarians have higher IQ, according to a British study still being ground up and churned out as new 12 years after it was first reported by the BBC in 2006.

The study, which spanned over 20 years, found intelligent 10 year olds, measured in 1970, were more likely to become vegetarians by the time they turned 30.

Hailed as a breakthrough longitudinal study indicating that intelligence and vegetarianism are linked, it’s unlikely that the scientific rigor of this study is what explains its longevity and interest. A less well-publicized U.S. study, released months later, flew in its face, finding no connection whatsoever.

“What makes information engaging is not the same as what makes information true,” explained Michael Dahlstrom, a professor at Iowa State University and an expert in science communication.

Stories about food are rarely just about our mealtime preferences. Food intersects with identity for a lot of people, said Dahlstrom.

This may be one reason why it has become such a magnet for dubious science. An investigation by Buzzfeed News claimed Prof. Brian Wansink, who led Cornell’s food psychology research unit, the Food and Brand Lab, found that it had played fast and loose with statistics, shuffling data about pizza-eating, snacking and vegetarian diets for kids to create good headlines.

Emails leaked to Buzzfeed showed Wansink wanted to “go virally big time.”

Many of Wansink’s papers extolled the virtues of healthy diets and were written to prove irresistible to online audiences. Wansink said he stands by his studies but is “re-analyzing” the data in a string of papers, after seven were retracted and 15 corrected, according to the Seattle Times.

The Austrian Study

This same effect has worked in reverse, with readers’ antipathy to findings being used to cast doubt on sound studies. A 2006 cross-sectional survey by the Medical University Graz in Austria reported people with vegetarian diets suffered higher rates of cancer, chronic allergies and mental illnesses, such as anxiety and depression.

Heralded as vindication for some omnivores and cause for cautious introspection by some vegetarians, it has since then taken its own place in the online world of dietary mudslinging. Its plant-eating detractors slammed its credibility with the same force they boost pro-vegetarian content.

Known as “The Austrian Study,” it has been lambasted by animal rights blogs as “quackery.” That’s overstating things, yet—as its authors acknowledge—the study is partial, incomplete and open to misinterpretation.

The British National Health Service intervened with its own analysis, highlighting the survey’s limitations—allowing people to self-report their diets, only including Austrians, saying nothing of cause and effect—and refuting newspaper reports that vegetarian diets caused disease.

Why do some food-based science stories elicit such a strong response?

“Being a vegetarian or being a meat-eater means more than just the food I eat, or the health effects or the price I pay—it means what kind of person I am,” said Dahlstrom. “Any story that affirms identities around these topics will be very engaging to the people who hold them. Science therefore gets pulled into these identify affirming stories even though the truth behind them is irrelevant.”


One claim stands out head-and-shoulders above the rest for plausibility: that vegetarians are more empathetic and thoughtful than their meat-eating counterparts.

This tends to get believed right out of the gate, at least by those who refuse to eat meat on moral grounds. It makes sense of the causal link—explaining why they are vegetarians in the first place.

The monkey, pig, human experiment was of this sort, but it was Filippi’s earlier study that went viral.

His test showing by functional MRI that vegetarians and vegans respond differently to images of animal pain than meat-eaters is among the most oft-repeated in online debates.

This study “provided the first scientific evidence of the dietary habits influences on brain circuits, where dietary choice was based on ethical reasons,” said Rocca.

For scientists who really care if vegetarians’ brains work differently from those of meat-eaters, new tools are getting closer to insights that circumvent the issues they’d had using more basic tools like the ones used in the Austrian survey. But in 2010, as functional MRI was giving neurological insights, something else was taking off: Social networks were becoming our primary forum for debate.

“Science is usually seeking truth while general audiences are usually seeking engagement, and this creates a mismatch,” said Dahlstrom.

Dahlstrom says good science communicators bridge this gap by presenting truth in ways that earn engagement, but other communicators use engaging tactics to persuade untruth. “General audiences can use social media to share what they find the most engaging, regardless of truth,” he added.

Many of us non-scientists now get most of our science news through social media, so some understanding of where that news comes from is vital.

If you’ve ever clicked “Tweet” or “Share” on an article you’ve not really read, you’re not alone. A study of links shared on social media found 59 percent of them have never actually been clicked. In other words, most people appear to retweet news without ever reading it, and this the overwhelming norm for social media. Numerous studies have found that there is almost no correlation between what people share and what they actually read.

In a 1,700-word feature like the one you’re reading right now, perhaps less than 5 percent of readers will get to this point. If you have, congratulations—it’s a sign you’re more of a “truth-seeker,” to use Dahlstrom’s phrase, about your diet than most.

Which is why I’ve kept it to down here to say: The pig-monkey-human test is one example of the kind of study that could show us that dietary choices are linked to brain function. But it’s also the kind that has proved to vanish online, with no easy social media post.

Still, there remains the unanswered question of what exactly is more revealing about positive personal traits, like empathy: a functional MRI scan showing more activity in empathy-related brain areas in response to a pig in pain, or your broadcasting the findings of a scientific study you’ve barely looked at because you think it makes you look good?

After all, it’s worth asking what makes people share the findings of studies they haven’t even read, which is key in itself.

“For the group that does not have this need [that scientists have] to learn, what the study really suggests is irrelevant—what matters is how the story can benefit the individual to maintain or strengthen personal and social needs that they find more important than the truth of the topic at hand.”

Dahlstrom is sympathetic to people sharing on social media, saying regular people don’t have the same responsibility as journalists or professors, but also suggests we could become better seekers of the truth about diet and morality.

“It is important to note there is no distinct group between truth-seekers and not,” he added. “We all have topics that serve us individually in some way and we become truth-seekers for that topic. There are a much larger number of topics that have weaker connections to how we live our lives, and we do not devote the time to become truth-seekers for those topics. With only so many resources to invest in truth—financial, mental and social—we all have to prioritize.”

Matthew Ponsford is a London-based journalist and producer who has written for Thomson Reuters, CNN International, Financial Times, the Guardian, the Independent and Vice. Follow him on Twitter @mjponsford.


This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

By Nancy Posted in Uncategorized Tagged

Glyphosate Could Be Factor in Bee Decline, Study Warns


Olivia Rosane

Another study has cast doubt on the environmental safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, the most frequently used weedkiller in the world.

Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) exposed bees to glyphosate and found that it reduced the beneficial bacteria in their guts, making them more susceptible to disease.

“We need better guidelines for glyphosate use, especially regarding bee exposure, because right now the guidelines assume bees are not harmed by the herbicide,” UT graduate student and research leader Erick Motta said in a UT press release. “Our study shows that’s not true.”

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Monday, exposed bees to glyphosate amounts that occur on crops and roadsides and then assessed their gut health three days later.

Of eight common gut bacteria, four were reduced following exposure to glyphosate. The exposed bees also had higher mortality rates when subsequently exposed to the widespread pathogen Serratia marcescens.

The study’s authors wondered if glyphosate exposure could be a factor in the decline in U.S. bee populations and recommend that farmers and gardeners stop using glyphosate on flowering plants favored by pollinators.

“It’s not the only thing causing all these bee deaths, but it is definitely something people should worry about because glyphosate is used everywhere,” Motta said.

Monsanto, the company that made Roundup before being acquired by Bayer AG, disputed the findings.

“Claims that glyphosate has a negative impact on honey bees are simply not true. No large-scale study has found any link between glyphosate and the decline of the honeybee population. More than 40 years of robust, independent scientific evidence shows that it poses no unreasonable risk for humans, animal, and the environment generally,” a Monsanto spokesperson said in a statement reported by The Guardian.

RMIT University in Melbourne chemist Oliver Jones also expressed skepticism that the study meant glyphosate was actively harming bees in the environment.

“To my mind the doses of glyphosate used were rather high. The paper shows only that glyphosate can potentially interfere with the bacteria in the bee gut, not that it actually does so in the environment,” he told The Guardian.

Other studies have shown that glyphosate can harm bees and other animals, however.

A study published in July found glyphosate exposure harmed bee larvae and another, published in 2015, found bees exposed to levels present in fields had impaired cognitive abilities that made it harder for them to return to their hives, The Guardian reported.

A further study of rats also showed glyphosate exposure harmed gut bacteria.

“This study is also further evidence that the landscape-scale application of large quantities of pesticides has negative consequences that are often hard to predict,” University of Sussex Professor Dave Goulson told The Guardian.

Glyphosate’s impact on human health has been in the news in recent months after a jury decided in favor of a California groundskeeper who claimed that Roundup exposure caused his cancer and ordered Monsanto to pay him $289 million in damages.

Glyphosate is making its way into human guts too. A recent study found Roundup traces in popular oat-based snacks and cereals.


Yellowstone Area Grizzlies Regain Endangered Species Protection

By Olivia Rosane

A grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park. Jim Peaco / National Park Service

A federal judge restored endangered species protections for grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park on Monday, The Huffington Post reported, putting a permanent halt to plans by Wyoming and Idaho to launch the first Yellowstone-area grizzly hunt in four decades.

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen had already placed a temporary restraining order on the hunts, which would have started Sept. 1 and allowed for the killing of up to 23 bears, while he considered the larger question of whether Endangered Species Act protections should be restored. The bears’ management will now return to the federal government.

Christensen wrote in his ruling that his decision was “not about the ethics of hunting.” Rather, he agreed with environmental and tribal groups that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had not considered the genetic health of other lower-48 grizzly populations when it delisted the Yellowstone area bears in 2017.

“By delisting the Greater Yellowstone grizzly without analyzing how delisting would affect the remaining members of the lower-48 grizzly designation, the Service failed to consider how reduced protections in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would impact the other grizzly populations,” Christensen wrote, according to The Huffington Post. “Thus, the Service ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.'”

Bear advocates said the Yellowstone population was growing large enough to merge with other populations, which would be a win-win for the genetic diversity of all bears involved.

A grizzly bear and cub in Yellowstone National ParkJohn Good / National Park Service

“The Service appropriately recognized that the population’s genetic health is a significant factor demanding consideration,” Christensen wrote. “However, it misread the scientific studies it relied upon, failing to recognize that all evidence suggests that the long-term viability of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly is far less certain absent new genetic material.”

Native American and environmental groups applauded the decision.

“We have a responsibility to speak for the bears, who cannot speak for themselves,” Northern Cheyenne Nation President Lawrence Killsback said in a statement Monday reported by The Huffington Post. “Today we celebrate this victory and will continue to advocate on behalf of the Yellowstone grizzly bears until the population is recovered, including within the Tribe’s ancestral homeland in Montana and other states.”

The FWS told The Washington Post it was reviewing the ruling.

“We stand behind our finding that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear is biologically recovered and no longer requires protection. . . . Our determination was based on our rigorous interpretation of the law and is supported by the best available science and a comprehensive conservation strategy developed with our federal, state, and tribal partners,” the FWS told The Washington Post.

The FWS first attempted to delist the bears in 2007, but that move was also blocked in federal court over concerns that one of the bears’ food sources, whitebark pine seeds, were threatened by climate change.

In its 2017 ruling, the FWS said that it had reviewed the case and found the decline of the whitebark pine seeds did not pose a major threat.

Grizzlies in the lower 48 states were first listed as endangered in 1975, when their historic range had been reduced by 98 percent.

The Yellowstone grizzlies numbered fewer than 140 at the time. The population has since rebounded to about 700, according to The Washington Post.