MISSOULA, Mont. — Wildlife conservation groups have sued BNSF Railway, saying the railroad’s trains are violating the Endangered Species Act by hitting and killing grizzly bears.
The lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Missoula by WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project says 63 grizzly bears have been killed by BNSF trains in an area of Montana designed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a “recovery zone” for the threatened bears. It asks that the court find that the railroad is violating the Endangered Species Act and order it to “cease causing take of grizzly bears ” — such as wounding, killing, or capture — as well as other relief the court deems appropriate.
The suit argues that there are actions the railroad could take to lessen the chance a train could strike a grizzly bear, including reducing train speeds around curves, in canyons or other areas with few escape routes for bears; systems with flashing lights or bells that would warn of an approaching train; motion-sensor alarms or electrified mats near trestles to keep bears off bridges; preventing grain spills on the right-of-way; and promptly removing livestock carcasses from the railway.
“When a company chooses to operate in the epicenter of key habitat for a threatened species, it must take some responsibility to adapt practices to minimize its impacts on these animals,” Sarah McMillan, wildlife and wildlands program director at the Western Environmental Law Center in Missoula, said in a press release. Said Erik Molvar of the Western Watersheds Project, “The Burlington Northern railway runs right alongside Glacier National Park, some of the most prime grizzly habitat in the world, so the railway should be expected to slow down and take precautions to ensure grizzly bears aren’t put at risk from train operations.”
The suit said BNSF has failed to receive an Incidental Take Permit that would address the deaths, and has failed to complete a Habitat Conservation Plan outlining measures to reduce bear strikes. BNSF said in an email to the Flathead Beacon newspaper that the delays in completing the plan reflect the company working with with the Fish and Wildlife Service to “respond to and address public comments and incorporate data and information” from Fish and Wildlife and grizzly bear monitoring in the area after BNSF’s application was submitted.
Perhaps they could stake Sarah McMillan and Erik Molvar out near the tracks so they can shoo the bears away. The lawsuit will be settled as soon as BNSF agrees to make a sizable donations to the Western Environmental Law Center in Missoula, and the Western Watersheds Project which is what this type of litigation is really about: keeping the bank accounts of phony not for profits full so they can pay substantial salaries to the likes of Sarah McMillan and Erik Molvar.
63 bears, that a lot of steaks. BNSF should open the “GRIZZLY GRILL” in Missoula.
“Fresh from our tracks to your table”
Comment #8 is insightful: If bears ae so plentiful that they regularly cross tracks and are struck, how can their numbers be endangered?
Thank you lawyers. Maybe we need some new rules/regulations for the other animals like Elk, Mule Deer, Mountain Lions.
The environmental groupies better get on that private jet (like the US Climate Czar Kerry) and fly to some important conference.
Oh, God! This is un”bear” able….
😏😝😜😂
Ridiculous ! Where wildlife and trains interact,there’s always been casualties.
The only critters that will benefit from this are the lawyers !
Those bears should expect a train at any time, on any track, in any direction.
The bears were there first.
Which was there first? The Endangered Species Protection Act? Or the railroad?
It seems Jim Salisbury’s reply to Comment #10 makes the most sense.
University of Montana (in the USA) is working with Parks Canada and CPKC to come up with a solution.
Meanwhile, in the USA, Western Environmental Law Center in Missoula and the Western Watersheds Project, presumably USA 501(c)(3)’s, have gone to court with specious claims that BNSF has “chosen” to operate in the epicenter of key habitat for a threatened species. The GN Seattle Line opened in 1893 while Glacier Park opened in 1910. Thus, it appears the US Government chose to locate a key habitat for a threatened species along the GN right of way.
“When a company chooses to operate in the epicenter of key habitat for a threatened species, it must take some responsibility to adapt practices to minimize its impacts on these animals,”
-I’m guessing that when the railroad chose to built the rail line in that location the bears were not considered a threatened species. Why is a “threatened species” still plentiful enough that they are getting hit on a regular basis?
If the railroad is to install mitigation measures, wouldn’t that require an environmental impact study to be objected to by some other environmental group?
Not too many years ago bears were reintroduced to the mountainous regions of Central Europe where they had been hunted into nonexistence centuries earlier. They started killing livestock, the farmers protected their livestock and within a couple of months all the bears were dead. For some reason the smart people had not anticipated this outcome.
ALEX —- You misread me. I’m not opposed to handicapped access or protections for the disabled in health care, education, employment, etc. ADA was the wrong way to do it for a number of reasons.
(1) Assumes the all-knowing federal government knows more than the fifty states, many of which were well on the way to enacting what became ADA policies. In fact, if you read the Constitution, there is no federal jurisdiction over local building codes. The way to do this should be same as NEC National Electrical Code (NFPA 70). Which is written and updated every three years by private-sector experts. Then it is adopted by the states, where the jurisdiction lies, sometimes with slight modifications as in Wisconsin. Also adoopted by some jurisdictions outside of USA that use (like us) the 120 vac power format.
(2) ADA is so vague and open-ended that it means anything to anybody. Congress has handed unprecedented powers to the Executive and the courts. Meaning anybody can sue anybody and the rule of law breaks down.
They should counter sue and say Glacier should install a barrier fence. The founder of the railway, James J Hill, is the main reason the park even exists.
In the same area how many vehicle strikes with grizzles? Are the suers going to make all auto and especially trucks slow down?
Tongue-in-cheek response: has anyone with too much time on their hands thought about suing the bears for trespassing?
I looked it up, average of 44 attacks worldwide, 2000-2015. Miliatry resevervations have similar problem. At one time, Army bases were isolated and the critters had free reign. As development happened, critters forced onto miliary areas, where they interfere with training and exercises.
In the present case, bear population is increasing and encounters will likewise increase. Instead of whining about this, environmental groups should spend their money on constructive solutions to the issue. My impression is that these groups exist to weaponize the government instead of presenting solutions. Is their intent to bully their views rather than solve them? As this forum has discussed before, government is the least effective manner to solve problems.
Somehow I’m reminded of the phone call from a terribly frustrated lady to the highway dept. She was upset with the injuries to deer because of the “deer crossing” location that was marked by highway dept signs. She insisted the hwy dept move the deer crossing to a safer location…
A couple of things to note.
BNSF has been working on a set of “bear bridges” when railside fences force a bear onto the bridge to reach the other side (hence the meetings with USFW.)
Second, when the original bear exclusion zone was setup, it didn’t encompass BNSF ROW. But the program was so successful it caused a bear over run in the zone and by nature, male bears started spreading out to locate more territory. The zone was then increased which then took in the ROW. The bears are increasing population very quickly, faster than expected, so therefore more conflicts with moving trains. Makes sense, more bears….higher chances of a strike.
Perhaps modern trains need a padded cow spreader on the front end to bounce the bears off to the side.
BNSF has not treated the issue lightly and has been active in tracking bear strikes. I am guessing the lawsuit is to force the government and railroad to move faster.
I think you may have brought up the main contention here John, “BNSF has not treated the issue lightly and has been active in tracking bear strikes. I am guessing the lawsuit is to force the government and railroad to move faster.”
The University of Montana has been working in conjunction with Parks Canada, other agencies and CP(KC) for decades on this problem and have seen some success, over 40 highway over or under passes and several measures along the RR right of way mostly in Alberta and a trickle in BC.
So yes in my opinion some people are just not happy with BNSF not reacting fast enough, especially being the Canadian work on the problem is in the same area.
I really get tired of the antics and law suits these people bring. They take advantage of knowing that even if they lose the suit there will be no money judgement against them. I wonder if those who filed the sit even live in the affected area? BNSF should file for reimbursement of legal expense if they win the case.
The fact that anyone would take my comment seriously is funnier than the Conservation groups actually suing the railroad.
You do realize that my reply to your initial comment was sarcasm intended, right?
Coming soon: Conservation groups will demand bears be equipped with collars linked to the PTC. If a bear wanders on to the tracks a yellow hashbox will be displayed on the God Box requiring the crew to remove at restricted speed.
In my opinion, your comment makes the most sense so far…after all, the gajillion amount of money the railroads were forced to spend on PTC by the government should warrant some sort of repayment because the government demanded PTC with the pretense that it would help minimize derailments, collisions, and so forth. Since PTC was the governments idea, they should have included “and collisions with all forms of wildlife” too. Someone needs to tell the bears to just stay off the tracks, or post signs for the bears to read that says No Trespassing on railroad tracks. Yeah, that should do it!
One more additional thought here, over a five- or ten-year period, there are probably more people killed by grizzlies than are killed by freight trains on BNSF’s lines through Idaho and Montana.
Oh, please ~ ! Gimme a break~! The railroad didn’t choose “to operate in the epicenter of key habitat for a threatened species”, the railroad was there for 150 years or more. The sanctuary for the bears was only established and came about recently.
Therefore, it should be up to the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife or some other agency to take on the expense to protect the bears not the railroad.
More and more stuff seems to be getting out of whack in America.
Government by lawsuit.
Government by vague, open-ended legislation (endangered species, clean air act, ADA) that can mean anything the courts or the executive branch or a special-interest group want it to mean.
America as a banana republic.
“banana republic”, Charles this has been going on for many years through both Republican and Democratic administrations. It will continue to go because this is the United States of America where we still have freedom to chose what causes we believe in and that includes the right to seek grievances when necessary. With that said I do not enjoy frivolous suits like the above but if this were a “banana republic” they would not be able to bring those suits. America love it or loath it it’s the only one you have Charles and I like my freedoms.
The ADA is a good thing. It helps people with all sort of disabilities (visible or otherwise) get an equal shake at access to buildings, among MANY other things. If the ADA didn’t exist, automatic doors would be much less commonplace, as would wheelchair ramps, braille signs, and possibly elevators too. Someday, you will most likely need a cane or wheelchair as you age. You won’t be complaining about the ADA then! (Also, the Clean Air Act keeps us from being like China or India, where you can’t go outside in some areas on really bad smog days. I, for one, like being able to breathe.)