If Sturgeon spearing is lost, I may have to go spear somrone behind it!

[seeth07]

Read the management plan. Most of those objectives would not be possible without funding of which almost all of it comes from the supporting local community in WI. We don't have hundreds of 1000's of NR buying preference points at ridiculous prices for false hopes to fund these things around here like out West.

Sturgeon_SturgeonManagementPlan2019.pdf

widnr.widen.net

 

[Treeshark]

We don't have hundreds of 1000's of NR

Although we welcome and appreciate NRs to come and spear for a mere $65

More Sturgeon Spearing Info

This includes a very detailed day-by-day review of last season. Cool stuff.

 

[seeth07]

Although we welcome and appreciate NRs to come and spear for a mere $65

More Sturgeon Spearing Info

This includes a very detailed day-by-day review of last season. Cool stuff.

Maybe not this year though, things don't look great. Mid 40s next week are only going to make it worse

 

[Treeshark]

Yeah not looking good, I agree. Although a thaw and then a hard freeze might actually help, the ice is junk on top right now. Fingers crossed…

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am neither an expert in sturgeon management or the ESA, but I would venture to guess there is a scientifically material difference between managing continent-wide extermination risk and sport fishing management of one “smallish” fishery. The DNR could be great at the later and miss the boat on the former. I’ve also seen fishery collapses in several Ontario lake trout lakes and several walleye lake in MN that the DNR sounded to be on top of, but entirely missed the boat as with hindsight over valued local economic/sportsman concerns and engaged the issue too late.

 

[Treeshark]

My prediction is that they do indeed get listed under the ESA, but US Fish and Wildlife grants an exemption to the Winnebago system.

I could see the hook and line seasons in WI being in peril- I don’t know enough about these fisheries to form any sort of opinion on that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

My prediction is that they do indeed get listed under the ESA, but US Fish and Wildlife grants an exemption to the Winnebago system.

And then the NGOs will sue over the exemption. This will be a long haul once in the crosshairs of the system.

 

[Treeshark]

And then the NGOs will sue over the exemption. This will be a long haul once in the crosshairs of the system.

Yep I think you’re right. There will be a lot of moola coming to the table on that one, it would be a battle for the ages.

Those who haven’t been near Bago during the spearing season would have a difficult time comprehending the importance to this part of the state.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I would think that for a fish, the range considered for ESA listing would only be for the water body/system. For this case, the lake sturgeon range would only be the Winnebago, Fox, Wolf, Green Bay system. If the historic range included also other tributary systems of Lake Michigan, then those should be included as well. I think this is what you were pointing out here with your statement and I'm just trying to clarify and see if we are on the same page.

It would think that looking at the Mississippi river system and sturgeon there would be totally separate although the ruling here I'm understanding would put them under ESA listing across the board (all 3 sub ecosystems of Lake Michigan, Lake Superior system, Ohio River, Mississippi and a few other isolated pockets such as a few locations where they exist in northern WI on lakes.

Only if that species exists only in that specific body of water, even then you'd have to have backup habitats in case of extirpation.

For a species like sturgeon, which are far ranging animals, spread across a large geography, you will see the USFWS looking at multiple jurisdictions' population & management strategies.

Think of it like trout: if we lost 95% of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in lake Yellowstone, wouldn't we conserve other populations of the species elsewhere while working on restoration (Which WI seems to be doing well.)?

 

[Ben Lamb]

And then the NGOs will sue over the exemption. This will be a long haul once in the crosshairs of the system.

Depending on how the listing rule is written, yes & no-ish. There's a similar issue with wolverines & getting a 4D rule instituted to allow for incidental harvest. Same could be done with sturgeon in areas where populations can handle harvest & it's heavily regulated (not necessarily the 4D, but just showing there is flexibility in the act).

If the service builds sport take into the initial listing correctly, then it more likely withstands the challenge.

We hunted Grizzly Bears while listed and we came darn close to having a management action on wolves in the Root under the 10j rule as well.

So, options exist but so do judges with different interpretations of the law.

 

[seeth07]

Only if that species exists only in that specific body of water, even then you'd have to have backup habitats in case of extirpation.

For a species like sturgeon, which are far ranging animals, spread across a large geography, you will see the USFWS looking at multiple jurisdictions' population & management strategies.

Think of it like trout: if we lost 95% of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in lake Yellowstone, wouldn't we conserve other populations of the species elsewhere while working on restoration (Which WI seems to be doing well.)?

Last night I looked into this a little bit and sturgeon, both shovelnose and lake, are indeed managed/classified by watershed river systems.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Last night I looked into this a little bit and sturgeon, both shovelnose and lake, are indeed managed/classified by watershed river systems.

By the states or is that how the Feds are looking at it?

 

[seeth07]

By the states or is that how the Feds are looking at it?

State management. The feds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) was asked back in 2018 to make a threatened determination on sturgeon at either a distinct population level or the entire Great Lakes/Mississippi basin region and they chose to let the deadline pass without providing a determination. The same thing exists this time around except this time a lawsuit, filed by The Center for Biological Diversity, Fishable Indiana Streams for Hoosiers, Hoosier Environmental Council, and Prairie Rivers Network, was ruled on by a judge that the USFWS needs to provide an official status ruling by 2024 (June).

So it is plausible that they could segregate the populations for listing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

State management. The feds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) was asked back in 2018 to make a threatened determination on sturgeon at either a distinct population level or the entire Great Lakes/Mississippi basin region and they chose to let the deadline pass without providing a determination. The same thing exists this time around except this time a lawsuit, filed by The Center for Biological Diversity, Fishable Indiana Streams for Hoosiers, Hoosier Environmental Council, and Prairie Rivers Network, was ruled on by a judge that the USFWS needs to provide an official status ruling by 2024 (June).

So it is plausible that they could segregate the populations for listing.

So a judge isn't going to accept a state management plan as a reason to not list based on other states populations & management plans within the historic range. It's an unfair practice, IMO, but the ESA is all about stopping the immediate loss of a species and starting to build back a better place for them. You can't do that by isolating part of the population when it's a race against extinction. The law clearly says that they have to look at the overall distribution and population relative to historic range. Where it gets into the legal mukety-muck is when we try to create distinct population segments based on some populations being essentially self sustaining biologically. The courts have been clear that they want to see a range-wide restoration rather than a location specific restoration, which I don't think was the intent of the authors of the ESA.

Each state that is part of the petition (I haven't read it, btw) will have to have approved management plans before a delisting occurs, along with populations being above minimums in the entire listing area. For the ESA, it's about preserving the species, not recognizing political boundaries. While the flexibility exists, the Service has to balance the need for flexibility with the potential for losing it all for a more restrictive plan if they don't thread the needle just right.

 

[seeth07]

So a judge isn't going to accept a state management plan as a reason to not list based on other states populations & management plans within the historic range. It's an unfair practice, IMO, but the ESA is all about stopping the immediate loss of a species and starting to build back a better place for them. You can't do that by isolating part of the population when it's a race against extinction. The law clearly says that they have to look at the overall distribution and population relative to historic range. Where it gets into the legal mukety-muck is when we try to create distinct population segments based on some populations being essentially self sustaining biologically. The courts have been clear that they want to see a range-wide restoration rather than a location specific restoration, which I don't think was the intent of the authors of the ESA.

Each state that is part of the petition (I haven't read it, btw) will have to have approved management plans before a delisting occurs, along with populations being above minimums in the entire listing area. For the ESA, it's about preserving the species, not recognizing political boundaries. While the flexibility exists, the Service has to balance the need for flexibility with the potential for losing it all for a more restrictive plan if they don't thread the needle just right.

I get what you are saying and I don't think we are all that far apart from each other on this.

Here is where I'm tripping up though.

Looking at Grizzly bears in AK and their management there compared to Grizzly bears in Yellowstone and their manage there is completely separate yes? Different due to geography/range of them right?

Sturgeon in the Mississippi river basin and the Lake Michigan basin are equivalent in my eyes to the Grizzly bear statement. 100% different ranges of the fish and what happens in one isn't going to impact the other. The historic range of the fish in the one basin can't be compared to the historic range in the other because the two are completely different from each other unless you go back so far in time to where there once was not those two basins but instead one (which due to the last ice age maybe that was the case).

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get what you are saying and I don't think we are all that far apart from each other on this.

Here is where I'm tripping up though.

Looking at Grizzly bears in AK and their management there compared to Grizzly bears in Yellowstone and their manage there is completely separate yes? Different due to geography/range of them right?

Sturgeon in the Mississippi river basin and the Lake Michigan basin are equivalent in my eyes to the Grizzly bear statement. 100% different ranges of the fish and what happens in one isn't going to impact the other. The historic range of the fish in the one basin can't be compared to the historic range in the other because the two are completely different from each other unless you go back so far in time to where there once was not those two basins but instead one (which due to the last ice age maybe that was the case).

How's that working out for y'all on woofs?

Sorry. That was snarky.

W/O reading the judges decision, I'm just guessing based on past experience, so what I'd say is that the Great Lakes population will be pulled in together just like the wolf issue, and given the range of sturgeon, looking at the Mississippi system means you have to go all the way down to the last spot those fish use, which ties you to other states in that regard as well.

You are likely tied in with other Great Lakes States, just like w/Asiatic Carp.

 

[seeth07]

How's that working out for y'all on woofs?

Sorry. That was snarky.

W/O reading the judges decision, I'm just guessing based on past experience, so what I'd say is that the Great Lakes population will be pulled in together just like the wolf issue, and given the range of sturgeon, looking at the Mississippi system means you have to go all the way down to the last spot those fish use, which ties you to other states in that regard as well.

You are likely tied in with other Great Lakes States, just like w/Asiatic Carp.

Sorry, I'm not saying to "exclude WI". I'm saying that it would make sense for the ruling to go "Endangered listing in the Ohio River Valley Region, Threatened in the Mississippi Valley Region and no listing in the Lake Michigan Region". It would impact all states in those geological regions.

When you asked about states vs fed view on management, I was just pointing out that the states, "WI", views things by the drainage basin - not statewide. Its why you can spear on the Bago system (lake michigan) but not on the Mississippi system.

The way I understand what was asked of them back in 2018, that is possible.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sorry, I'm not saying to "exclude WI". I'm saying that it would make sense for the ruling to go "Endangered listing in the Ohio River Valley Region, Threatened in the Mississippi Valley Region and no listing in the Lake Michigan Region". It would impact all states in those geological regions.

When you asked about states vs fed view on management, I was just pointing out that the states, "WI", views things by the drainage basin - not statewide. Its why you can spear on the Bago system (lake michigan) but not on the Mississippi system.

The way I understand what was asked of them back in 2018, that is possible.

I would imagine that's a court case the Service would lose, given the current regulatory matrix, unfortunately.

I'd have to read the decision and the Service's work to have an actual informed opinion outside of the generics.

Reality and the law are oftentimes disparate relatives.

 

[seeth07]

given the current regulatory matrix, unfortunately.

Yes indeed unfortunate. The reality is this: It is BETTER for the resource (survival of the sturgeon) to keep them UNLISTED. The folks that watch the sturgeon spawn on the Wolf River each spring (think of the type of folks that go to Yellowstone to look at the Grizzlies, Bison, etc.) aren't the ones providing the funding that does exist in this state to help the resource. The Center for Biological Diversity along with other conservation organizations would have helped the resource more by taking the money they put into the lawsuit and other causes and instead directly donating it to the WDNR where they could have further funded their programs for improvement of the waterbodies with Sturgeon.

Isn't that a sad reality about our society?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes indeed unfortunate. The reality is this: It is BETTER for the resource (survival of the sturgeon) to keep them UNLISTED. The folks that watch the sturgeon spawn on the Wolf River each spring (think of the type of folks that go to Yellowstone to look at the Grizzlies, Bison, etc.) aren't the ones providing the funding that does exist in this state to help the resource. The Center for Biological Diversity along with other conservation organizations would have helped the resource more by taking the money they put into the lawsuit and other causes and instead directly donating it to the WDNR where they could have further funded their programs for improvement of the waterbodies with Sturgeon.

Isn't that a sad reality about our society?

Except that if listed, there are likely more funds available for restoration.

Losing the fishery would be a massive blow to the sturgeon's social acceptance, and that's a huge part of the matrix that has to be considered.