As for your comparison between black bears and grizzlies: your right they are managed much the same way. That doesn't mean anything really and it doesn't help your argument either. I'm sure you realize how carefully controlled black bear harvest is (at least in my state). All bears have to be turned in at Fish and Game offices etc. They keep a really close eye on the black bear harvest because they are so suseptable to additive mortality from hunting. But it' just logic, if you have a black bear population of 3,000. Your annual harvestable surplus could be anywhere from 750-1,000 bears per year. So this population can obviously hold its own even with hunting pressure.

I don't see competetion being a huge problem between black bears and grizzlies. I'm sure it has some effect by lowering black bear populations but I doubt the black bear population is in trouble due to competition with grizzlies. For one thing black bears have a wider range of forage items and the two bears don't have the same preferred foods. I'm sure the black bear population will suffer but I don't think it will be substantial.

As for your ESA thing: Protection is a part of management believe it or not. Hunting is also management. All those things are just tools we use to manage wildlife. It appears to me that your saying that a population has to be harvested in order to be "managed".

By shutting down the campground or whatever they are managing (manipulating) the circumstances to aviod any possible human/bear conflicts. This happens all the time and not just with endangered species. Any large carnivore near human use areas will cause a stir and most of the time the animal ends up getting killed one way or another.

Protection of endangered species is not total by any means. You are still able to get permits to kill endangered animals, and there are no laws at all against taking endangered plants. Hell, Wildlife Services is the governments own squad of endangered assassins. They are the ones that kill the problem animals like wolves/bears/cougars depredating livestock. So I wouldn't term it total protection. Total protection would mean we value the animals above humans and that doesn't happen. Wolves and grizzlies are killed on a regular basis.

The important thing about the ESA is that the scientists finally realized that losing species and thus their genes is probably not a good thing. I know you guys don't care about biodiversity and genetics but that doesn't mean it isn't important.

Don't put a label on me just yet. You think that if someone is educated then they are city slicker or whatever. I grew up in Idaho and I work in the biggest wilderness complex in the lower 48. I just look back at myself about 10 years ago and I was just like you. I was fortunate enough to learn some skills that helped me to look at different sides of an issue, not just the side my opinion leans toward. Understanding the big picture is important. Just because you walk outside and see frogs falling from the sky doesn't mean it's happening everywhere else. But it may be effecting other places.

And that is what most of these discussions boils down to. As a biologist I'm still trying to learn how to communicate with the public, especially a hostile public that could care less about biodiversity or conservation when his cows are getting eaten. I have alot to learn yet about that aspect of it.