This just in...Feds/wolves/courts

[Buffs35]

"the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, so long as they don't eat elk and deer... or are otherwise inconvenient on the landscape."

This is why we need a sarcasm font on this site. Your comment that an eagle isn't a wolf just reminded me of a game I play with my kids on road trips where they have to describe how two animals are different. Sorry you took it as the thesis to my pending manifesto.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is why we need a sarcasm font on this site. Your comment that an eagle isn't a wolf just reminded me of a game I play with my kids on road trips where they have to describe how two animals are different. Sorry you took it as the thesis to my pending manifesto.

Sometimes you just want to make a snarky comment and you just look for an easy target, sorry buddy.

 

[Buffs35]

Sometimes you just want to make a snarky comment and you just look for an easy target, sorry buddy.

I take no offense, if it wasn't for snarky comments, I'd hardly talk at all. All good.

 

[Jason73]

"the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, so long as they don't eat elk and deer... or are otherwise inconvenient on the landscape."

Exactly why there is such limited reintroduction of elk in the plains. Where in the plains probably 95% of land is private, out west its more like 30% is private so big brother gets to make those decisions for the 30% of private land owners. There's not a single rancher in the west who wants to protect his livelihood from wolves, just like the plains farmers would be devastated by a herd of elk.

 

[Wildabeest]

I was just about to post this same article. Gotta love the tree hugging feds. I’m glad that wolves and grizzly are not protected where I hunt. Kill on site per GWs.

What do you have against trees?

 

[Eric Albus]

Damn liberal judges.

Only time anyone want a liberal judge is when they are on trial

 

[RandanP]

Fire up your helicopters boys, there’s only two left in the Montana region 3 quota!

 

[MTGomer]

Fire up your helicopters boys, there’s only two left in the Montana region 3 quota!

Bring the belt fed, I’ll round up the Guvnuh

 

[ccc23454]

Fire up your helicopters boys, there’s only two left in the Montana region 3 quota!

 

[Big Fin]

"the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, so long as they don't eat elk and deer... or are otherwise inconvenient on the landscape."

Yes, your last bolder part is very often true.

Yet, what's to be offered to locals who have made very possible concession, changed their landscape uses dramatically, and met or exceeded every conditions asked of them for state control, only to have the litigation process gum it up for decades? They have tolerated the inconvenience, embraced it as a requirement for the next steps, and have paid financial and other costs to accomplish that.

That is the case with grizzlies in the GYE. We have stopped logging in many areas. We have eliminated motorized use in many areas. We have imposed camping restrictions. We have installed bear-proof storage in most areas. We have denied subdivisions. We have (insert many more here). We have made huge changes across vast landscapes, all of which were done with the promise that by doing so, along with GBs increasing to certain population levels within the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA), states would be granted management authority.

It has been very inconvenient for many people to change their lives and landscape uses for the benefit of GBs. Locals agreed GBs were worth making those changes for. And GBs in the GYE are overflowing from the PCA/DMA to places nobody ever expected. All the criteria have been met. Yet, the promises made are now unkept via the litigation process.

When this level of accommodation and inconvenience is imposed and locals rise to the task, what is to be made of their contribution? As much as I agree with your statement that some of these arguments are merely folks not wanting to change their ways, there have been huge accommodations by locals on many of these issues related to wolves and GBs.

We are now to the point that someone like me, a person who is deeply committed to the conservation of wild places and wild things, would never support a reintroduction of another species under the current legal framework that exists. This litigation is to the long-term detriment to critical conservation opportunities. I would say I am more patient than your average Montanan in terms of my willingness to "get it right." But, this process of perpetual litigation and disregard of the huge compromises and changes made by locals has lost me as a supporter.

Conservation of future species and landscapes will likely be the real long-term loser in this short-term game played by the litigators. That's a sad outcome when so many conservation challenges are ahead of us.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We are now to the point that someone like me, a person who is deeply committed to the conservation of wild places and wild things, would never support a reintroduction of another species under the current legal framework that exists. This litigation is to the long-term detriment to critical conservation opportunities. I would say I am more patient than your average Montanan in terms of my willingness to "get it right." But, this process of perpetual litigation and disregard of the huge compromises and changes made by locals has lost me as a supporter.

I talk a lot, so I'm going to ask a question and then listen, because you lived this; in your honest opinion do you think we have put our best foot forward on these management/delisting plans for these species?

I have a close relationship with an individual who is a environmental attorney and when this wolf delisting occurred said, they will be sued, they will lose, and these are the reasons and they nailed it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yes, your last bolder part is very often true.

Yet, what's to be offered to locals who have made very possible concession, changed their landscape uses dramatically, and met or exceeded every conditions asked of them for state control, only to have the litigation process gum it up for decades? They have tolerated the inconvenience, embraced it as a requirement for the next steps, and have paid financial and other costs to accomplish that.

That is the case with grizzlies in the GYE. We have stopped logging in many areas. We have eliminated motorized use in many areas. We have imposed camping restrictions. We have installed bear-proof storage in most areas. We have denied subdivisions. We have (insert many more here). We have made huge changes across vast landscapes, all of which were done with the promise that by doing so, along with GBs increasing to certain population levels within the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA), states would be granted management authority.

It has been very inconvenient for many people to change their lives and landscape uses for the benefit of GBs. Locals agreed GBs were worth making those changes for. And GBs in the GYE are overflowing from the PCA/DMA to places nobody ever expected. All the criteria have been met. Yet, the promises made are now unkept via the litigation process.

When this level of accommodation and inconvenience is imposed and locals rise to the task, what is to be made of their contribution? As much as I agree with your statement that some of these arguments are merely folks not wanting to change their ways, there have been huge accommodations by locals on many of these issues related to wolves and GBs.

We are now to the point that someone like me, a person who is deeply committed to the conservation of wild places and wild things, would never support a reintroduction of another species under the current legal framework that exists. This litigation is to the long-term detriment to critical conservation opportunities. I would say I am more patient than your average Montanan in terms of my willingness to "get it right." But, this process of perpetual litigation and disregard of the huge compromises and changes made by locals has lost me as a supporter.

Conservation of future species and landscapes will likely be the real long-term loser in this short-term game played by the litigators. That's a sad outcome when so many conservation challenges are ahead of us.

The only real way to balance this is federal legislative action. The laws, regs, agencies, judiciary and the complex plans, in the end, all favor the non-resident litigants. I am not saying I don't care about wildlife, but what I am saying is the affected locals bear all the externalities and the activist environment litigators have no personal skin in the game. If folks in NY want GBs in the west, then maybe they should start more fully reimbursing those in the west who pay the real price BigFin calls out. I love wilderness and wildlife - but I hate the myth of the rural "zoo" that soothes the souls of urbanites who will rarely if ever actually leave their concrete cocoon yet gives them comfort knowing they donated to the "right" NGO.

 

[BrentD]

Randy,
I am pretty surprised by your post on a lot of points.

Wolves (and endangered species in general) have joined a long list of topic for which there will never be a rest from litigation. Gun rights, Abortion, Immigration, and all things environmental have reached that most intense of contrasts, red vs. blue.

If you can't support another reintroduction, then this is a very sad day.

 

[Jason73]

The only real way to balance this is federal legislative action. The laws, regs, agencies, judiciary and the complex plans, in the end, all favor the non-resident litigants. I am not saying I don't care about wildlife, but what I am saying is the affected locals bear all the externalities and the activist environment litigators have no personal skin in the game. If folks in NY want GBs in the west, then maybe they should start more fully reimbursing those in the west who pay the real price BigFin calls out. I love wilderness and wildlife - but I hate the myth of the rural "zoo" that soothes the souls of urbanites who will rarely if ever actually leave their concrete cocoon yet gives them comfort knowing they donated to the "right" NGO.

Exactly

 

[VikingsGuy]

Randy,
I am pretty surprised by your post on a lot of points.

Wolves (and endangered species in general) have joined a long list of topic for which there will never be a rest from litigation. Gun rights, Abortion, Immigration, and all things environmental have reached that most intense of contrasts, red vs. blue.

If you can't support another reintroduction, then this is a very sad day.

In all cases, one of the big undiscussed problems is that in our current world, we expect other people to pay for our strongly held beliefs. I like the ESA, but I don't like that private landowners bear all the costs while broader society takes a free pass. The same could be said for old men who are vigorously pro-life while also being anti-birth control and anti-social welfare, or current descendants of immigrants opposing immigration. etc etc etc. We have become a society where our cost-free virtue signaling/"non-negotiable" values are used to bludgeon the ones who do pay the price with little to no empathy or thought about the others.

 

[BrentD]

In all cases, one of the big undiscussed problems is that in our current world, we expect other people to pay for our strongly held beliefs. I like the ESA, but I don't like that private landowners bear all the costs while broader society takes a free pass. The same could be said for old men who are vigorously pro-life while also being anti-birth control and anti-social welfare, or current descendants of immigrants opposing immigration. etc etc etc. We have become a society where our cost-free virtue signaling/"non-negotiable" values are used to bludgeon the ones who do pay the price with little to no empathy or thought about the others.

Dan,
I'm going to disagree with you. Locals do not bear all the costs, and they allow cause some of the costs. Further, those that are non-residents do have skin in the game. The lands are as much theirs as anyone's where we are talking about public (federal) land which is the bulk of it.

"Locals" is a very broad net cast over a very heterogeneous population. But some of those "locals" have created (often with nonlocal monies), plenty of their own frivolous and even fraudulent lawsuits. They have created as many (actually more in my opinion) problems as wolves themselves have caused. My sympathies are not great for them.

Note also, that some locals are profiting mightily by these same animals.

I've worked closely on two endangered mammals, but not wolves. It is almost impossible to make generalizations other than, there is plenty of shit to spread around on all sides (n>>2).

 

[mtmuley]

Dan,
I'm going to disagree with you. Locals do not bear all the costs, and they allow cause some of the costs. Further, those that are non-residents do have skin in the game. The lands are as much theirs as anyone's where we are talking about public (federal) land which is the bulk

Yeah. Nonresidents looking at the furry wolf pictures from the comfort of their urban homes have a "skin in the game". mtmuley

 

[BrentD]

Yeah. Nonresidents looking at the furry wolf pictures from the comfort of their urban homes have a "skin in the game". mtmuley

Whatever. Flippant remarks like that are going to cut it with me.

So, what is YOUR personal skin in this game and how is it any different that the folks you dismissively kick to the curb?

 

[mtmuley]

Whatever. Flippant remarks like that are going to cut it with me.

So, what is YOUR personal skin in this game and how is it any different that the folks you dismissively kick to the curb?

You first. mtmuley

 

[Big Fin]

I talk a lot, so I'm going to ask a question and then listen, because you lived this; in your honest opinion do you think we have put our best foot forward on these management/delisting plans for these species?

I have a close relationship with an individual who is a environmental attorney and when this wolf delisting occurred said, they will be sued, they will lose, and these are the reasons and they nailed it.

Yes, I do feel we have put our best foot forward. I think it far exceeded what was expected or anticipated.

The steps forward were what was asked of locals. At that time, in the minds of many making those huge requests, they were comfortable locals would never make such drastic accommodations and thus we would never meet the delisting criteria. Some of them voiced that they had set the bar so high that delisting would never to be achieved.

Well, here we are; the requests have been met. The bluff has been called by the strong actions locals have taken to accommodate species.

There is a practical reality of living on these landscapes. The locals, to varying degrees, pay the price asked of those completely unaffected.

Your attorney friend is correct that there will be continual litigation, as the ESA, the recovery plans, and the ever-changing landscape and climate is impossible/impractical to satisfy every judicial eye. We could see it coming, and not for reasons related to the health of GBs or wolves. And talking to others heavily involved, they know there are many other technical area where a challenge could likely succeed. Perfection is expected of locals, the USFWS, and state wildlife plans. Perfection in this fast changing imperfect world is impossible, even if all conditions exist for robust GB and wolf populations.

So, we will continue to see litigation based on legal technicalities and the emerging or changing conditions, none of which change the overall picture that these species are in good health. That is where we find ourselves and those with the levers of power to abuse the current system have every short-term incentive to do so. And thus they will.

It brings forth the obvious - these lawsuits, based on immense technical complexities causing judges to make interpretations of law and words, will continue no matter how many of these animals exist on the landscape. The perverted incentives caused by some of our other laws exempts many litigators from financial or personal liability that normally come from litigation in other aspects of our society.

The GBs and wolves are in better shape now than at any time in my lifetime. And not due to the litigators, rather due to some great scientists and biologists, along with locals committed to restore species they also have a high concern for. So long as this dynamic exists and all the levers of power are given to litigators, count me out for any future reintroductions until such changes. Twenty-five years of being heavily involved and trusting that the system would/could work have shown me otherwise.

I wish it was different.