Grey Wolf Protections to End 2020 (GO Hunt)
- Thread starter Dsnow9
- Start date
This x 100. The little link Sytes posted is warm and fuzzy and speaks some good buzzwords, but ultimately in court the USFWS are likely to get hammered.
There was a no logic in NOT evaluating based on DPS. Otherwise elk could likely have been a solid ESA species for many years, and probably still would be.
Not addressing this issue first is akin to launching your boat and wondering why it sinks every time when you keep failing to patch the hole in the hull.
Last edited by a moderator:
npaden
Well-known member
Maybe while they are crafting some new scientific based legislation to fix the horse and burro act they can add in some good language to fix the DPS problems with the Endangered Species Act? That's what the legislature is all about right? Carefully crafting laws and if there are issues with interpretation then clarifying that language for the courts with amended legislation.
Instead we have to rely on bandaids thrown in on other popular bills as riders.
Instead we have to rely on bandaids thrown in on other popular bills as riders.
The ESA is a sacred cow for so many in the conservation & environmental world and it's a massive boogeyman that should be eliminated to many on the right/anti-conservation side that being able to get reform done becomes herculean, and with Dems in control of the House, and given the current leadership in the Senate, I don't see any compromise unless it's a long, drawn out affair to find places where folks can agree. I was hopeful with the Barrasso effort, but that seems to have died on the vine.
npaden
Well-known member
Yes, my comment was completely tongue in cheek, I guess I should have used an appropriate smiley. I think the days of bipartisan thought out legislation are behind us for the most part. The Great American Outdoors Act was a shocker for me. I really didn't think it had a chance of getting through.
The fact that the rallying cry for the best legislation relating to the ESA was a tiny rider on a massive debt extension bill shows how far we have to go on it.
I tend to agree.
I do think that GAOA shows the increasing power of the conservation world politically. If the Senate weren't in play and this issue wasn't a defining factor in people's balance sheet for voting, then it would have continued to languish. The difference is how divisive the wolf issue has become as both sides work to make money, rather than progress.
And I totally missed the sarcasm. Well played.
npaden
Well-known member
And I totally missed the sarcasm. Well played.
I guess maybe it was more cynicism than sarcasm. One of those ism's or asm's for sure.
What I said would be awesome, but I realize that it most likely doesn't have any chance at all of actually occurring. In a perfect world that is what the legislature should be doing though. Maybe they will get on that after they work through some comprehensive social security and medicare reform.
Sometimes I think our society is like a bunch of ostriches, if we keep our collective heads in the sand maybe things will miraculously fix themselves. Actually most don't have their heads in the sand they just spend all their time and effort pointing fingers at the other side but not actually doing anything to solve the problems.
Returned from a few days afield... glad to see this thread is reasonable discussion.
Basically, the next stalemate / looming shutdown in congress where another rider can slip in is about the only hope to sneak it by the anti-esa crowds... Says something about doing this the righteous method, via USFWS scientific studies and quantified #'s going through the Agency responsible for ESA.
Center for Biological Diversity's, et al obstruction via litigation hell is the down side for a fantastic recovery of the grey wolf.
Unfortunate though the fact of today's extreme activists.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I agree, there are going to be people against it regardless. I just ask that you don't lump every person who is opposed to the idea in with them. I have said this numerous times on this board, I am for state management (wolves or bear) WITHIN federal guidelines. I am against this move if it means the Feds have zero say in population objectives. My problem is that localizing decisions increases the possibility of corruption (in this case, defined as decision being made without the best interest of the resource(s) being considered). Many of us complain that the state of MT is terrible at elk management- hunt them for 6 mo., still can't meet population objectives, landowners still unhappy, hunter success decreases, etc. I'm not sure why one would think that states are "better able to manage" resources when we have numerous examples of mistakes in management. Hopefully my nuance is clear.
Not sure how to individually separate one person from collective groups without a windfall / war and peace novel sized post. I made it clear the organization(s) (et al) directly involved in the bear and wolf issues. If you are involved with those... well - share your opposition with those who you choose to contribute to represent your $$$...
I believe I am in the exact same boat as you and with all respect - that is EXACTLY how it operates for State managed wolves in the States with the slipped legislation to get it rolling. Minimal #'s, as required by ESA USFWS is essential to maintaining State management of wolves and has work in EXCESS - far excess of those numbers to ever be concerned with potential conflict with USFWS requirements.
As shared, it's unfortunate such extreme enviro activist obstruction causes a successful population to continue in opposition to State Management of wolves.
Did you read Center for Biological Diversity's statement regarding their frustration and inability to continue their legal obstruction? I have to say many are excited we are able to manage wolves at the State level... and this took it to riders to get it past the obstructionists.
Simpson/Tester, if you recall, was opposed by the State of Wyoming, along with SFW & Big Game Forever until they got caught trying to submarine the effort. So let's not forget that our enemies are on all sides here. It's also important to remember that the politics of the upper and lower chamber are vastly different than they are today. Harry Reid deserves a huge amount of credit for pushing for S/T to be included in the Omnibus spending bill. Right now Pelosi doesn't want to add anything like that. Environmental riders are not in vogue anymore with the Dems in control of the House, and Reps using other methods to achieve their goals (Executive office). So I'm not seeing a path to passage here like we did with S/T.
I think the Great Lakes population is the next domino to fall congressionally, if we get a balanced approach to natural resource politics back. If not, then we end up in stalemate & the states that have done such good work, will grow to resent the ESA even more, which has been the plan by the right wing ant-esa crowd.
It's all 3 dimensional chess. What you see in front of you is likely just the beginning of machinations.
As far as the concept of minimal numbers being the delisting requirement, that's only 1 component. There has to be an adequate regulatory mechanism in place along with assured genetic connectivity for long-term sustainability of the populations. That's why we had to go congress really - Wyoming did not have an adequate regulatory mechanism in place as it was going back and forth between courts fighting over it's legality. Wyoming didn't want to change it's plan (which was politically driven by livestock interests & Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, along with a litigator who smelled a lot of money continuing the conflict on the right). The Great Lakes states have that - connectivity, approved plans & a demonstrated commitment to the longevity of the species.
So we ended up with the only way forward that was feasable at the time. In the 9 years since then, nobody has fixed the underlying issue, thinking that when it was politically advantageous, more political management of wildlife would be just fine.
I think the Great Lakes population is the next domino to fall congressionally, if we get a balanced approach to natural resource politics back. If not, then we end up in stalemate & the states that have done such good work, will grow to resent the ESA even more, which has been the plan by the right wing ant-esa crowd.
It's all 3 dimensional chess. What you see in front of you is likely just the beginning of machinations.
As far as the concept of minimal numbers being the delisting requirement, that's only 1 component. There has to be an adequate regulatory mechanism in place along with assured genetic connectivity for long-term sustainability of the populations. That's why we had to go congress really - Wyoming did not have an adequate regulatory mechanism in place as it was going back and forth between courts fighting over it's legality. Wyoming didn't want to change it's plan (which was politically driven by livestock interests & Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, along with a litigator who smelled a lot of money continuing the conflict on the right). The Great Lakes states have that - connectivity, approved plans & a demonstrated commitment to the longevity of the species.
So we ended up with the only way forward that was feasable at the time. In the 9 years since then, nobody has fixed the underlying issue, thinking that when it was politically advantageous, more political management of wildlife would be just fine.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Yes, and I like the way it works now. States have some constraints to operate under. If they didn't, it would be a free for all.
No, didn't read it, but I know how they operate. They are basically funded for filing legal cases. I don't like it. It sucks. But it's America in the present day. Every group files a lawsuit if they don't like something. The rule of law is democracy's greatest gift.
Same page there as well...
Similar threads
