End of Grizzly Delisting?

[Lucky_Lep]

“They” unite against things. We spend as much time defending ourselves from each other as we do fighting together. Probably way more if HT, Rockslide etc is any indication.

Take a look at the Montana thread right now: an enormous amount of mental energy is being spent over what, like less than 100 tags?

We tend to pick stupid hills to die on, myself included.

It just takes one person with an insatiable desire to change things, and (most importantly) someone others want to listen to.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

As Someone who deals with the bald and golden eagle act, the migratory bird treaty act, and the wild bird conservation act on a daily basis……….. I’m 100% on board!

I know this is gonna bring some bad things along with the good. But I believe our current regulatory system is so broken that the only way to make any change is to tear it all down and start over.

If it’s important, they can put it in the register every five years. If it isn’t, let’s get all these junk regulations out of the way.

Nothing is gonna make everybody happy. But from what I care about this is a great move in the right direction.

Chase

You can only put so many bandaids on a broken system.

Some times the best fix is to start over.

Change is uncomfortable.

 

[Wildabeest]

That is hard to envision, given how far down the priority list these issues are when compared to economy, budgets, tax cuts, immigration, tariff, etc.

Both sides, in Congress and the Administration, are ready to burn most of their political capital on those topics at the top of their lists. They won't waste any of that capital on issues this far down their priority list.

If shower heads can have their day of priority below the big magic Sharpie, then surely there’s hope for public lands.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I agree 100%, but good luck with that one.

I mean FFS, we had a grand total of only 2128 people that contributed to the gofundme effort to open up 3 million acres of public access via challenging corner crossing...and only 1 hook and bullet group that stepped up, along with meateater. There's what, 15 million or so hunters in the U.S. IIRC...and 2128 people is all that stepped up?

The rest hid under the bed, whimpering in fear that we might offend a landowner, or a state legislature, or a governors office, or heaven forbid "lose", something we never had.

IMO/E, very few have the stomach to put themselves out there, afraid to challenge the status-quo, and afraid they might lose. Its why we never win.

If you want to see truly fearless efforts, watch how anti-gun and anti-hunting groups go about things. They don't give a shit if they lose, they aren't afraid to go to GF meetings, they aren't afraid to talk to people to sway them and push their agenda, they never give up.

Hunters and fisherman don't show up, they don't talk to anybody but those in their echo-chamber, they won't put themselves out there, and if they lose one time they toss in the towel. Its pathetic, it really is.

Unless hunters and fisherman can start getting off their butts, putting their money where their mouths are, and start showing up in force to support wildlife, public lands, etc. we're going to continue losing.

You can watch things happen, make things happen, or wonder WTF happened. Hunters are constantly wandering around mumbling "WTF happened?"

Absolutely. To Buzz’s point just this weekend Wildlife For All (noted national anti-hunting org) posted this after losing unanimously at the Arizona wildlife commission on their mountain lion hound hunting ban petition, “We will never stop. We only have to win once, they have to win every time”.

That is what we are up against. It will require us to be organized and unrelenting.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

Absolutely. To Buzz’s point just this weekend Wildlife For All (noted national anti-hunting org) posted this after losing unanimously at the Arizona wildlife commission on their mountain lion hound hunting ban petition, “We will never stop. We only have to win once, they have to win every time”.

That is what we are up against. It will require us to be organized and unrelenting.

And a part of that organization is finding publicly made statements like this and creating a repository of them for lobbyists, and lawyers, to use.

 

[BuzzH]

Absolutely. To Buzz’s point just this weekend Wildlife For All (noted national anti-hunting org) posted this after losing unanimously at the Arizona wildlife commission on their mountain lion hound hunting ban petition, “We will never stop. We only have to win once, they have to win every time”.

That is what we are up against. It will require us to be organized and unrelenting.

“Our institutions are too big; they represent not the best but the worst characteristics of human beings. By submitting to huge hierarchies of power, we gain freedom from personal responsibility for what we do and are forced to do - the seduction of it - but we lose the dignity of being real men and women. Power corrupts; attracts the worst and corrupts the best. ... Refuse to participate in evil; insist on taking part in what is healthy, generous, and responsible. Stand up, speak out, and when necessary fight back. Get down off the fence and lend a hand, grab a-hold, be a citizen - not a subject.”

― Edward Abbey,

 

[Deleted member 56225]

“Our institutions are too big; they represent not the best but the worst characteristics of human beings. By submitting to huge hierarchies of power, we gain freedom from personal responsibility for what we do and are forced to do - the seduction of it - but we lose the dignity of being real men and women. Power corrupts; attracts the worst and corrupts the best. ... Refuse to participate in evil; insist on taking part in what is healthy, generous, and responsible. Stand up, speak out, and when necessary fight back. Get down off the fence and lend a hand, grab a-hold, be a citizen - not a subject.”

― Edward Abbey,

I am not trying to be political or disrespectful. I love the fact you quoted Abbey. An incredible prose writer but a miserable alcoholic. I know you are a government employee and pissed off about the government slashing going on now. So I find it confusing that you use an Abby quote that starts with him saying "our institutions are too big". And that power corrupts which is what bloated bureauracy is. And a side note that Abby would of supported the present executive branches stance on immigration. He wrote an essay (published in Down the River or the Journey Home, I forget which one) about immigration in the 70s. For the grizzly part of this post, people should go read Grizzly Years by Doug Peacock. He is the man Abby based his Hayduke character on in The Monkey Wrench Gang and Hayduke Lives. Whether you want save the bears or hunt them it is a really good read. Not trying to ruffle feathers. Respect your opinion and the way you came to your opinions.

 

[shrapnel]

Regardless of the science, emotion is what is driving the current grizzly dilemma. It won’t end anytime soon, probably not in our lifetime in regards to ever hunting them again…

 

[Lucky_Lep]

Regardless of the science, emotion is what is driving the current grizzly dilemma. It won’t end anytime soon, probably not in our lifetime in regards to ever hunting them again…

What is the ecological benefit of managing the Grizzly population in the lower 48 through hunting? In other words, what is the detrimental effects on the ecosystem of a Grizzly population that is not adequately managed?

If hunting as a management tool is not appropriate (according to some), then what Best Management Practice habitat reclamation and restoration efforts have to be implemented to counteract the negative impacts of the uncontrolled Grizzly population? In other words, what improvements to the landscape are needed to improve the survivability of deer, goat, sheep, elk, antelope? Is relocation of animals from over objective areas needed to rebalance the adversely affected ecosystems after habitat reclamation and restoration efforts?

To sum up, how can we “partner” with the anti hunting communities to improve/add to hunting habitats and rebalance populations across multiple landscapes?

 

[BuzzH]

I am not trying to be political or disrespectful. I love the fact you quoted Abbey. An incredible prose writer but a miserable alcoholic. I know you are a government employee and pissed off about the government slashing going on now. So I find it confusing that you use an Abby quote that starts with him saying "our institutions are too big". And that power corrupts which is what bloated bureauracy is. And a side note that Abby would of supported the present executive branches stance on immigration. He wrote an essay (published in Down the River or the Journey Home, I forget which one) about immigration in the 70s. For the grizzly part of this post, people should go read Grizzly Years by Doug Peacock. He is the man Abby based his Hayduke character on in The Monkey Wrench Gang and Hayduke Lives. Whether you want save the bears or hunt them it is a really good read. Not trying to ruffle feathers. Respect your opinion and the way you came to your opinions.

I think the "magic" of any good author is to invoke thought that takes any 25 readers 25 different directions. Why I like reading Abbey.

Even his use of the word "institutions"...is up to the reader to interpret for themselves, mine is much different than yours.

 

[SAJ-99]

As Someone who deals with the bald and golden eagle act, the migratory bird treaty act, and the wild bird conservation act on a daily basis……….. I’m 100% on board!

I know this is gonna bring some bad things along with the good. But I believe our current regulatory system is so broken that the only way to make any change is to tear it all down and start over.

If it’s important, they can put it in the register every five years. If it isn’t, let’s get all these junk regulations out of the way.

Nothing is gonna make everybody happy. But from what I care about this is a great move in the right direction.

Chase

There will be no "starting over". The goal is a permanent destruction of the system.

 

[Chase0109]

There will be no "starting over". The goal is a permanent destruction of the system.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I’m certainly no expert when it comes to regulatory and political processes. But because this is a EO, I believe it can be overturned by courts, or the next president. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this is it zero sum game with no actual permanent changes.

And I 100% believe it’ll start all over again even if this does stick. People are really good at tinkering with things they don’t like. That’s exactly how we got to where we are. People just keep adding more and more regulations.

While I believe a lot of of these regulations are good and shouldn’t be repealed, I believe it’s gotten out of hand and is too severely over regulated without any opportunity for change. When you have people making rules as they see fit with zero accountability,it causes problems.

So I standby my personal assessment that I’d rather see a permanent destruction of 90% of the regs, then continue with where we are right now.

When there’s no way to make change through current channels, the only option is the nuclear one. Hopefully this will stick and see where it goes. Only the future knows if this will turn out to be a positive or negative change.

Chase

 

[SAJ-99]

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I’m certainly no expert when it comes to regulatory and political processes. But because this is a EO, I believe it can be overturned by courts, or the next president. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this is it zero sum game with no actual permanent changes.

And I 100% believe it’ll start all over again even if this does stick. People are really good at tinkering with things they don’t like. That’s exactly how we got to where we are. People just keep adding more and more regulations.

While I believe a lot of of these regulations are good and shouldn’t be repealed, I believe it’s gotten out of hand and is too severely over regulated without any opportunity for change. When you have people making rules as they see fit with zero accountability,it causes problems.

So I standby my personal assessment that I’d rather see a permanent destruction of 90% of the regs, then continue with where we are right now.

When there’s no way to make change through current channels, the only option is the nuclear one. Hopefully this will stick and see where it goes. Only the future knows if this will turn out to be a positive or negative change.

Chase

I understand the frustration with regulations, and might even agree that they have gotten too burdensome in many cases. However, there is no "agree to disagree" on the goal. We can disagree on the level of regulation, or if regulations can be put back on by EO (see Chevron deference reversal) but not that the goal is to destroy the whole thing. See @Hunting Wife post #23. I will add to that in addition to laying off Federal staff across agencies that work on the regulations and permitting, we see below in the Project 2025 the ultimate goal. The irony in the statement is that they are cutting research grants to the same universities conducting the research they rely on. There is also a proposal to not give research grants to universities that would exceed what would be received from private donors. (note: This is how you end up with views from second rate conservative universities that used pseudo-science. But that is a different discussion.)


The people in charge right now wouldn't stop economic development for a grizzly bear or black-footed ferret, much less an endangered plant or fish or insect. See the order to open up USFS lands to more logging. The only thing preventing it is a lack of human resources in logging companies to actually get it done. There is certainly no debate happening on any of these EOs. What is the relief? Some group could sue and maybe a judge would order a halt to the project, but we have seen an increasing view from the Executive branch of a disdain for judicial orders, to the point they are simply ignored. Who is going to stop this, and how?

The only thing that can happen is Congress starts doing its job. If a Dem got elected this Congress would be doing stuff every day.

National forests face the hatchet as Trump administration boosts logging

A new policy opens 58% of U.S. national forests to logging by rolling back environmental protections.

www.usatoday.com

 

[wannabee]

I think the ESA is as American as apple pie. It isn't perfect but I think getting rid of it would be a terrible mistake

 

[twodogs]

As Someone who deals with the bald and golden eagle act, the migratory bird treaty act, and the wild bird conservation act on a daily basis……….. I’m 100% on board!

I know this is gonna bring some bad things along with the good. But I believe our current regulatory system is so broken that the only way to make any change is to tear it all down and start over.

If it’s important, they can put it in the register every five years. If it isn’t, let’s get all these junk regulations out of the way.

Nothing is gonna make everybody happy. But from what I care about this is a great move in the right direction.

Chase

I'm curious regarding your involvement in the laws you mentioned. Is your engagement as a biological consultant, industry insider, an agency (e.g., USFWS) biologist implementing the regulations, or some other facet I haven't mentioned?

 

[grasshopper]

Call Don Jr. Surely he can bend an ear to retain the Grizzly group.

 

[Chase0109]

I understand the frustration with regulations, and might even agree that they have gotten too burdensome in many cases. However, there is no "agree to disagree" on the goal. We can disagree on the level of regulation, or if regulations can be put back on by EO (see Chevron deference reversal) but not that the goal is to destroy the whole thing. See @Hunting Wife post #23. I will add to that in addition to laying off Federal staff across agencies that work on the regulations and permitting, we see below in the Project 2025 the ultimate goal. The irony in the statement is that they are cutting research grants to the same universities conducting the research they rely on. There is also a proposal to not give research grants to universities that would exceed what would be received from private donors. (note: This is how you end up with views from second rate conservative universities that used pseudo-science. But that is a different discussion.)

View attachment 368578
The people in charge right now wouldn't stop economic development for a grizzly bear or black-footed ferret, much less an endangered plant or fish or insect. See the order to open up USFS lands to more logging. The only thing preventing it is a lack of human resources in logging companies to actually get it done. There is certainly no debate happening on any of these EOs. What is the relief? Some group could sue and maybe a judge would order a halt to the project, but we have seen an increasing view from the Executive branch of a disdain for judicial orders, to the point they are simply ignored. Who is going to stop this, and how?

The only thing that can happen is Congress starts doing its job. If a Dem got elected this Congress would be doing stuff every day.

National forests face the hatchet as Trump administration boosts logging

A new policy opens 58% of U.S. national forests to logging by rolling back environmental protections.

www.usatoday.com

That is my bad on the terminology I used. My response was thinking about starting over, not the end goal.

Obviously, you are much more educated and well-versed overall on this topic than I am. Based on your research and what you said, I would agree with you that the end goal is total destruction.

Honestly, I generally don’t follow much of anything that doesn’t affect me on a personal level. Whether that be politics or otherwise.

What affects me personally is very minor in the entire scope of this sweeping EO. I firmly believe many of the regulations within these agencies are extremely redundant and no longer needed. I can only go off the regs that effect me. Originally, I believe they were all put in place with good intentions. The problem is we’ve given power to unelected people to interpret and create regulation as they see fit.

So I do apologize for not correctly addressing what you were referencing.

I still stand by my assessment that I’m personally happy with these changes, if they stick.

In the future, we may all look back on this and see it as a major catastrophe. Or as one of the best things in our nations history to undue burden some over regulation. Again, only time will tell

 

[Chase0109]

I'm curious regarding your involvement in the laws you mentioned. Is your engagement as a biological consultant, industry insider, an agency (e.g., USFWS) biologist implementing the regulations, or some other facet I haven't mentioned?

None of the above. Best description would be end user. The main ones that affect me both personally and professionally would be bald and golden Eagle act, migratory bird treaty act, wild bird conservation act.
And of course, all of the regulations piled on underneath those acts by USFWS, USDA, APHIS, ect.

I’ve spent 26 years learning, navigating and trying to change some of these regulations. So maybe I’m a bit jaded, but still will be very happy to see changes.

 

[rogerthat]

None of the above. Best description would be end user. The main ones that affect me both personally and professionally would be bald and golden Eagle act, migratory bird treaty act, wild bird conservation act.
And of course, all of the regulations piled on underneath those acts by USFWS, USDA, APHIS, ect.

I’ve spent 26 years learning, navigating and trying to change some of these regulations. So maybe I’m a bit jaded, but still will be very happy to see changes.

Could you be specific? Are you trying to complete projects and you have to follow timing stipulations or seasonal work restrictions?

 

[SAJ-99]

That is my bad on the terminology I used. My response was thinking about starting over, not the end goal.

Obviously, you are much more educated and well-versed overall on this topic than I am. Based on your research and what you said, I would agree with you that the end goal is total destruction.

Honestly, I generally don’t follow much of anything that doesn’t affect me on a personal level. Whether that be politics or otherwise.

What affects me personally is very minor in the entire scope of this sweeping EO. I firmly believe many of the regulations within these agencies are extremely redundant and no longer needed. I can only go off the regs that effect me. Originally, I believe they were all put in place with good intentions. The problem is we’ve given power to unelected people to interpret and create regulation as they see fit.

So I do apologize for not correctly addressing what you were referencing.

I still stand by my assessment that I’m personally happy with these changes, if they stick.

In the future, we may all look back on this and see it as a major catastrophe. Or as one of the best things in our nations history to undue burden some over regulation. Again, only time will tell

I get it. I think you are pretty typical of most Americans. The inability or unwillingness to see the broader picture is as much an impediment to meaningful solutions as anything else.