I'm curious about your theory. Do these bears have some internal compass that guides them North instead of just spreading out in all directions? Do the bears stop when they encounter good food, shelter and habitat conditions or do they keep pushing North to avoid interbreeding? The Judge is ignoring what trained and experienced biologists have advocated for some animal activist cause or theory. Are you tying your theory to some NYT columnist? If so, who? and what research did he/she do? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt even though animals have never been proven to think or behave in such a manner.

Males get pushed out. I guess simple math isn't your strong suit Erno. 50% of the gene pool is female. If only the males are pushed out, that still leaves 50% of the gene pool to interbreed. Not to mention the ratio of male to female births and survival which makes that percentage much heavier towards the females. I have to admit, I do get a small little giggle watching the totally ignorant try to appear intelligent. Call it a guilty pleasure. Sadly, Darwin only seems to account for other animals not us. Our population would be much thinner.

I have a theory that anything requiring thinking, logic and relevance are not Erno's strong suit. At least that is what his posts seem to indicate.

"In a new paper, biologists say that as grizzly populations increase in both Glacier National Park and Yellowstone, more adventurous males from both parks are journeying further to stake out territory, winding up in places where they have not been seen in a century or so.

If they keep roaming and expanding, the two populations are likely to reconnect as soon as 5 or 10 years from now."

" 'Because Yellowstone is a bit lower in genetic diversity, hundreds of years from now they might be less able to adapt to changing conditions --- changing climate, changing food sources and disease resistance, ' Dr. van Manen said."

"While no one knows what what advantageous traits the Glacier grizzlies might have in their genes, increasing diversity is the best way to assure resilience against those types of hazards.

The state of Montana has said it would not allow hunting where the two populations might reconnect."

quotes: "Grizzlies Moving Towards a Reunion" - By Jim Robbins - THE NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017
"

If I wanted hunting information, it sure as hades would not come from the New York Times. Just stop, you have already proven you know little if anything. Quoting sources means nothing.

So some biologists have a theory that they've published in a paper. Pretty big ifs in the paper and their theory should be closely examined and scrutinized. Consider this:

Let's say (for the sake of discussion), that both Grizzlies eventually expand to each other's sphere on habitation. Maybe they meet in Montana, maybe in another state or even in Canada since Canadian Grizzlies don't seem to push South that much (just a personal anecdotal observation but humor me). So when the 2 Grizzly groups meet, the males in both groups are going to contest the territory. That's what they do. If your Canadian Grizzlies win, they get to pass their genes onto the Yellowstone group. If not, the gene flow goes the other way. So some degree of crossbreeding occurs. Where in those biologists' theory or yours does it show or explain how or why the crossbred Grizzlies would go back to their respective initial home areas (Canada and/or Yellowstone) and cross breed the rest of their respective populations? I mean, those groups left their respective home areas because they were kicked out. How are they going to convince the dominant males in each area to let them back in?

You see the problems with this "theory" right? I mean if biologists truly wanted to accomplish a cross breeding purpose, wouldn't it make more sense for them to trap and release males and females from each respective area into the other area? Kind of like you bring in a different bull to breed your cows when you're trying to avoid too much interbreeding of your herd. It's great to read articles but you still have to think about them and whether they make sense. Critical thinking should occur whether you're reading some article about some biologists' theory or you're examining a used car proposed contract/deal. In each case, the other party is doing what they think is best for them and it might not always be best for you or even correct.

It should no be apparent to all of us that the guy from MD knows so much more than those of us that have actually spent a lot of time or even been born in the Rockies does when it comes to grizzlies. After all, there has never been a grizzly in either MD or NY but that doesn't stop them from being experts right? I wonder if he knows how far it is from Yellowstone to Glacier? Heck you could put 2 or 3 MDs in that distance but he thinks these bears are just going to hop and skip across that much territory so they can get busy breeding. I wonder if he factored in the 7 months a year the bears spend in hibernation into his thought pattern. OOPS!

Maybe he thinks they get subway passes? :D

Frauds are so easy to spot!

BUT! your missing the point here!
bring logic and facts into the discussion and all it does is potentially slow the head long mindless goal of banning hunting...
you don,t really think for two seconds that the stated goal was legit!
(well maybe, it is if the libs think theres a high percentage of GAY GRIZZLIES)