Not all has been rosy for the greater Yellowstone grizzly bear since it was removed from federal protection in March 2007. More than 50 of the bears have been killed by humans, including hunters who either shot them in self-defense or mistook them for other animals. Some bears have been destroyed or removed from the wild because they preyed on livestock or had other conflicts with people.

There's also legitimate concern about the future of one of the bear's primary food sources, the whitebark pine tree. Bark beetles are killing those trees along with other evergreens throughout the region, a problem scientists say is a result of a warming climate.

But in spite of those problems, the greater Yellowstone grizzly population is holding up well, and is even growing. The fact that there's been an increase in the number of bears killed due to conflicts with humans in some ways is evidence that the population is healthy, as bears are expanding into areas where they haven't been for close to a century.

In light of that fact, Monday's order by Montana U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy to return the grizzly to the threatened species list is puzzling. Sure, the future of the grizzly is far from certain. But it has exceeded its population target for the region, and there's no indication that the animal's numbers are about to plummet.

The grizzly population has grown steadily for the past 30 years. The concerns about the future don't warrant returning the bear to federal protection.

In considering a lawsuit by environmentalists opposed to grizzly delisting (by the way, a number of conservation groups favored it), the judge had to analyze the Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting rule to see if it complied with the Endangered Species Act. That involved looking at issues including the adequacy of state regulation to assure that grizzlies don't become imperiled again, as well as natural or man-made factors that could affect the species' existence. So it was proper that he consider the issue of the whitebark pine and climate change.

But until it's clear that the decline of the whitebark pine will cause a significant reduction in the grizzly population -- and that hasn't been determined -- it's premature for the judge to order relisting based upon that potential threat.

The judge also concluded that post-delisting state and federal regulations aren't sufficient to assure that the grizzly won't become imperiled again. He seemed to ignore the fact that there are specific bear mortality thresholds in place that, if met, would trigger a review of the grizzly's status.

As a practical matter, post-delisting management of the grizzly hasn't been substantially different from the way the bear was managed as a threatened species. That's because Wyoming, Idaho and Montana collaborated with the federal government to manage the animals. Their work was a great success, helping the species make a steady rebound.

The most significant change that could have resulted from delisting was the creation of grizzly hunting seasons. But none of the states was close to implementing hunts, and none had plans for anything more than extremely limited seasons and mortality quotas.

A similar lawsuit is being considered in federal court in Idaho. Here's hoping that the judge there -- or appellate judges -- will recognize that speculation about what might happen in the future isn't sufficient reason to return Endangered Species Act protection to the grizzly.