Last week's Question of the Week asked whether readers thought the delisting of grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park was premature, as alleged in a recent lawsuit filed by conservation groups. A majority said it was not.

Among 470 votes in this unscientific poll, 259 thought the removal from an endangered species designation was not premature, while 211 thought it was.

Some readers' comments:

n The delisting of grizzlies around Yellowstone should have happened a few years ago when it was determined they were "recovered." The purpose of recovery is to do just that and then move the species off the list. It is a good thing that critters recover, but then they need to be removed from listing. The exact same thing needs to happen with wolves. There are too many of them and they need to be managed.

n Yellowstone grizzlies will not make it as an isolated population, so delisting is premature. They must be listed until the various bear populations have expanded and become linked together.

n Yes, I believe the grizzly bears in Yellowstone should be delisted if they have reached a population level that is sustainable. That level should be determined by wildlife biologists based on scientific data and not by politics. I also agree that it is prudent to link up the grizzly bear population in Yellowstone with other grizzlies in the state via a migration corridor. However, with today's current landownership patterns that may be not be realistic. That doesn't mean interested parties and organizations can't continue to work on that goal. But waiting to delist the bears until that occurs may not be realistic or practical.