Changes to ESA rules

[Forkyfinder]

sage grouse.

i could see an argument made about migration corridors, being that they rely on intact and unfragmented habitat.

Do you have an example of development of that habitat - that was halted from the ESA - that now wouldnt have been halted because of the change?

 

[Forkyfinder]

1&2 are obvious.
3. I have a slight quarrel with the word "management". I think we need a whole thread on that topic because most members just focus on what helps the things they see (i.e. hunt or might hunt), as your example shows. Nature is far more complicated than we want to admit and we overestimate our ability to successfully "manage" it.
4. I think the biggest impacts will be seen in the coastal areas. Earlier this year they exempted O&G from considering habitat when they drill in the Gulf to encourage more wells. The result isn't endangered turtles washing up dead on the beach. It has an impact over time as the turtles go from 900 to 800 to 700. This administration's response is basically to stop counting them and pretend the problem doesn't exist...all for $$$.

The ESA is one of the most successful laws enacted. The Grizzly bears are a prime example. It's not 100% successful (failed at mountain caribou) but we can look back and see measurable success over 50yrs. I wonder what we see when we look back after 50yrs of this interpretation. I don't think it will be good. We have lost a ton of habitat already and this rule change won't help that.

I disagree that the ESA has been successful legislation.

By what metric? Animals taken off the list?

 

[SAJ-99]

I disagree that the ESA has been successful legislation.

By what metric? Animals taken off the list?

It is important that we are starting from the same point. Animals go on the list if they are endangered, they come off if they recover to self-sustaining levels or go extinct. So yes, animals taken off the list, but for the good reason. The more well known animals are wolf, alligator, bald eagle. The DOI keeps a list you can google if you want. At the very least, the ESA was successful in making people aware that they were having an impact on the environment. Along with regulatory rules on clean air and clean water (which are also being rolled back by this Admin BTW), the act has had a positive impact in improving this piece of real estate on the big blue marble we all call Home.\

Sage Grouse are not on the list. They probably should be but the concerns over adding to the list and it impacting development has kept them off. It certainly isn't because populations are doing great. Like Montana mule deer trends, doing something now will be a lot more impactful than waiting until the numbers make you have to do something.

 

[Gulf of America]

I disagree that the ESA has been successful legislation.

By what metric? Animals taken off the list?

I think the encumbrances that come with an animal being listed has resulted in a lot of work to prevent animals from being listed; it's harder to point to something that theoretically would have happened without the ESA, but sage grouse seems like a good example. There are a bunch of hurdles to state projects in sage grouse habitat, but those exist to keep it from being listed - like several have already stated, once that habitat is gone and it's listed, there's no easy way to come back.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Like Montana mule deer trends, doing something now will be a lot more impactful than waiting until the numbers make you have to do something.

Just need to trust whatever the scientists (bios) say the resource can support.

Sage Grouse are not on the list.

Was part of my point. Habitat protection can and does happen independent of the ESA.

the act has had a positive impact in improving this piece of real estate

How many griz would be in the flathead - if it were logged? More? Less?

Sage Grouse are not on the list. They probably should be but the concerns over adding to the list and it impacting development has kept them off.

That is part of the problem with the ESA. You suppose a rancher would want to tell someone if they saw a lynx? Based on operational risks to bottom line - my experience is no.

I wont pretend to have all of the solutions. But as i stated previously - we got here - because left and right cant come to reasonable compromise despite wide spread knowledge of the issue. When the parties are effectively development/enviromental radicalists - guess this is the result.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Was part of my point. Habitat protection can and does happen independent of the ESA.

This. Not a single ES within my permit boundary. I still have considerable wildlife and habitat monitoring, mitigation, protections and limitations that I operate under.

I have no problem with the ESA in its current state, other than how it is manipulated by the serial litigators that love to shop for judges. No idea if this action will be net positive or negative. What I am certain of is if the change survives the obvious legal challenges, its not the beginning of Thunderdome. Still won't be able to degrade habitat without any consideration for the wildlife that inhabit it.