Daines backs grizzly delisting bill

[406LIFE]

Finally. This is likely the only way grizzlies will be delisted. I thought there wasn't political will for this, I hope I'm wrong.

Daines backs grizzly delisting bill

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines has co-sponsored a bill to remove Endangered Species Act protection from grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and prevent any court challenge.

ravallirepublic.com

 

[Hunting Wife]

I wish there was political will to fix the ESA. It’s only a matter of time until management by Congress comes back to bite us in the ass.

 

[BWALKER77]

I wish there was political will to fix the ESA. It’s only a matter of time until management by Congress comes back to bite us in the ass.

Right!

 

[406dn]

While I think that Grizzly bears should be delisted,,,this bill will never make it thru Congress. For politicians outside of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho there is far more downside for voting to delist them than there is to leave things as they are. There is almost no upside for politicians away from the GYE to vote for delisting.


So,,,,,, the legal slog thru the court system is the only way Grizzlies will ever be delisted, I think.

 

[Ben Lamb]

While I think that Grizzly bears should be delisted,,,this bill will never make it thru Congress. For politicians outside of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho there is far more downside for voting to delist them than there is to leave things as they are. There is almost no upside for politicians away from the GYE to vote for delisting.


So,,,,,, the legal slog thru the court system is the only way Grizzlies will ever be delisted, I think.

There is 0 will in the House to pick this up. It's election year grandstanding. MT, WY & ID need to get approved plans in place, and we need to deal with the issue of Distinct Population Segments versus entire historic range before we get to a real delisting that isn't politically motivated.

 

[BWALKER77]

It's truly a shame that these filthy tree hugger groups, Yvon Chouinard and other assorted leftists take what should be a great victory for the ESA and turn it into a defeat in the eyes of the general public.

 

[longbow51]

Easy fix really. Trap all the grizzlies in Montana and Idaho and let them loose in sanctuary cities.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's truly a shame that these filthy tree hugger groups, Yvon Chouinard and other assorted leftists take what should be a great victory for the ESA and turn it into a defeat in the eyes of the general public.

I agree to a great extent with this, but let's be honest, if we had a USFWS that had the resources to properly write and execute the delisting proposals, we'd have far fewer challenges. These groups take advantage of that defunding to advance their agenda. The response from some politicians is to use that justifiable outrage to weaken bedrock laws (or try too) rather than seek common ground with reasonable people who would come to to the table, as they share the same concern of ensuring the ESA functions properly, and in a timely manner.

It takes two sides of the extremist coin to slow down this work. I still hold out hope that a Barrasso-like effort can get the act modernized and functioning properly relative to delisting, regardless of what the barkers on the extremes want.

 

[BWALKER77]

I agree to a great extent with this, but let's be honest, if we had a USFWS that had the resources to properly write and execute the delisting proposals, we'd have far fewer challenges. These groups take advantage of that defunding to advance their agenda. The response from some politicians is to use that justifiable outrage to weaken bedrock laws (or try too) rather than seek common ground with reasonable people who would come to to the table, as they share the same concern of ensuring the ESA functions properly, and in a timely manner.

It takes two sides of the extremist coin to slow down this work. I still hold out hope that a Barrasso-like effort can get the act modernized and functioning properly relative to delisting, regardless of what the barkers on the extremes want.

I agree the FWS could use more funding. However, it shouldn't go to fighting lawsuits. What we need is tort reform and a mechanism that forces the loser to pay court costs and legal fees of both sides.

 

[Nameless Range]

I agree to a great extent with this, but let's be honest, if we had a USFWS that had the resources to properly write and execute the delisting proposals, we'd have far fewer challenges. These groups take advantage of that defunding to advance their agenda. The response from some politicians is to use that justifiable outrage to weaken bedrock laws (or try too) rather than seek common ground with reasonable people who would come to to the table, as they share the same concern of ensuring the ESA functions properly, and in a timely manner.

I appreciate this comment Ben. This isn't really a comment on the ESA specifically, but more the idea of changing laws at the congressional level to deal with litigants in general.

When you say, "fewer challenges", this is where I myself become confused and unsure. It feels like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. I am no expert in project proposals, or delistings, so take it with a grain of salt, but when I follow a project along, listen to the folks who wrote it and plan to implement it, believe they are doing the best they can and that they have thought of as much as possible without spending a lifetime on it, and then it is halted due to litigation, part of me feels that no matter what, active management of public lands or delisting for that matter, is going to be litigated by certain groups.

It's confusing because there are some projects that have been litigated that I was happy to see halted or altered: https://westernlaw.org/20673-2/

And then there are others where I am sort of disgusted by the litigants: https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_dd3a4898-d499-52e6-93f2-773bcd9fb4cf.html

Ultimately I can't help but think that litigants who sue for everything are poisoning the well so to speak. So badly that someday they will regret doing so when a new one is dug. And so I just sit back and read HuntTalk threads with participants a lot smarter than myself.

 

[Sytes]

Well said, NR. Same sentiment.

Speaking specifically of ESA griz / wolves; IMO, there are certain fringe environmentalists that will always litigate (polite word for obstruct) and have, build, and continue to fund for this specific purpose.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree the FWS could use more funding. However, it shouldn't go to fighting lawsuits. What we need is tort reform and a mechanism that forces the loser to pay court costs and legal fees of both sides.

I agree as well, which is why the funding should to towards more effort into these proposals, as well as crafting better policy that gets around the DPS issue we've seen with wolves and now Grizz. I'm not saying fund the legal dept of the USFWS (which we should anyway), I'm saying let's give the USFWS the proper tools and funding to do their job. RIght now, they are short on folks to help with these kinds of documents, which leads to long drafting times, more opportunities to miss things and a higher liklihood of success of the litigants.

I appreciate this comment Ben. This isn't really a comment on the ESA specifically, but more the idea of changing laws at the congressional level to deal with litigants in general.

When you say, "fewer challenges", this is where I myself become confused and unsure. It feels like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. I am no expert in project proposals, or delistings, so take it with a grain of salt, but when I follow a project along, listen to the folks who wrote it and plan to implement it, believe they are doing the best they can and that they have thought of as much as possible without spending a lifetime on it, and then it is halted due to litigation, part of me feels that no matter what, active management of public lands or delisting for that matter, is going to be litigated by certain groups.

It's confusing because there are some projects that have been litigated that I was happy to see halted or altered: https://westernlaw.org/20673-2/

And then there are others where I am sort of disgusted by the litigants: https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_dd3a4898-d499-52e6-93f2-773bcd9fb4cf.html

Ultimately I can't help but think that litigants who sue for everything are poisoning the well so to speak. So badly that someday they will regret doing so when a new one is dug. And so I just sit back and read HuntTalk threads with participants a lot smarter than myself.

110% there with you on this. The issue relative to logging suits is not dissimilar to the USFWS & delisting rules. We've had some really bad decisions come out of the courts relative to timber projects (Cottonwood being the chief among them) that hold us hostage to well-meaning, but paralyzing policies and laws. Again, we enter into a situation where one side would rather gut our ability to hold our government accountable, rather than deal with the core-level issue of how these laws get implemented. It's far easier to grandstand than it is to find compromise and pass big policy bills. We have a congress that governs through soundbyte when they should be doing heavy lifting on this stuff.

The key to stopping this litigation isn't to take away EAJA or to limit lawsuits, it's to give our land managers the appropriate tools to do their job, such as the Good Neighbor Authority stuff in the last farm bill. Some injunctive relief on projects seeking to restore native ecosystem health isn't a bad idea, especially when dealing with the PJ side of things in grasslands & sagebrush country, but the way it's being promoted currently, it gives the DOI & USDA carte blanche to catex projects up to 10,000 acres, iirc. That's taking things a bit too far on an otherwise decent approach.

We let our tribalism get in the way of good reform & updating of bedrock laws.

 

[Jape]

I agree the FWS could use more funding. However, it shouldn't go to fighting lawsuits. What we need is tort reform and a mechanism that forces the loser to pay court costs and legal fees of both sides.

Tort reform has been tried in many other realms with little success (med mal caps, punitive damage changes, etc). As for the "loser" paying court costs/fees, the US rejected that model long ago. Does it increase fees and non-meritorious cases? Probably. Does it increase access to justice? Probably.

I think @Ben Lamb has the correct solution. There must be more funding for the USFWS and more compromise. The "other side" is more reasonable than we often want to admit.

 

[jimpickens]

The federal government has no business telling states how to manage their game animals if a state wants to have seasons for grizzly then that's their right to do so.