ESA Amendments

Amazing how I read so many complaints about how the anti-hunting and trapping organizations use the ESA to beat us up but when there is legislation that can actually turn the tide, there is nothing but crickets. The combination of these four amendments will fundamentally change how the ESA can be used against the states and the average joe and turn it around for the good of wildlife.
 
sagebrush said:
Please contact your members of the House and ask them to support HR 4315, 4316, 4317 and 4318.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hr4315.pdf
Click to expand...



First one wouldn't do squat for hunters. It just wants more stuff posted on the internet. Including "commercial data".

----Strike One ------


Second one wouldn't do squat for hunters. It just wants to know what suits cost the Agency money, and how much money was spent defending the Agency when the Agency breaks the law.. Again, nothing beneficial for hunters, nor taxpayers. Both, hunters and taxpayers, would be far better off if the Agency would comply with the ESA instead of break the law, then spend money defending the law breaking.

-----Strike Two ---------


Third one would also not do squat for hunters. It merely makes long decision process much longer, and, likely, much worse. Last thing we need is government decisions being reviewed by another 3194 governmental entities. Bad idea.

-------Strike Three ----------


And, the fourth one doesn't do squat for hunters. It merely puts the government in the position of fixing prices and messing with the free market and wage rates of Americans. Not something that helps hunters in the least. Again, bad idea.

------ Strike Four???------
 
Last edited:
Really? So requiring the data used as the basis of ESA decision making to be posted on the internet for public access before action is taken would not be of benefit? As it stands now, study data is quote by not available for review by the public. Allowing local stakeholders to be involved before action is taken would not be of benefit?

"Yesterday, the bipartisan Western Governors’ Association, led by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, issued a letter praising the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Congressional Working Group for its recent report and recommendations for improving the ESA. The letter specifically highlights their support for several areas of reform that align with the Working Group Report, including strengthening states’ role, greater use of state data and using sound science in ESA decisions, and clarity and transparency of ESA definitions. The letter states:

“Western Governors have called on Congress to amend and reauthorize the ESA. The Working Group’s report covers a breadth of ESA reform issues. We are particularly pleased to see that your recommendations call for significant enhancement of the role of states. The ESA statute is premised on a strong federal-state partnership but, in practice, the role of states has become increasingly limited over time. Western Governors encourage Congress to implement ESA reforms that reinstate the robust state engagement envisioned under the Act.”"

"The ESA has not been updated by Congress since 1988 and a lot has changed over the last two and a half decades. In 1988 there was no Internet in our homes, people sent letters instead of emails, we listened to music on a Walkman instead of an iPod, and no one had heard of smart phones or text messages. Today, we wouldn’t depend on technology from the 1980s and, similarly, we shouldn’t assume that a law last reviewed in the 1980s is the best and most effective for today’s world.

That’s why we formed an ESA working group last year to determine whether and how the law can be improved to work better for both species and people in the 21st Century.

The working group, consisting of thirteen Republican House Members from across the country, embarked on an eight month-long fact-finding mission. We fielded hundreds of public comments. We heard the testimony of 70 witnesses before the House Natural Resources Committee and held a public forum featuring a broad spectrum of views on the ESA. And earlier this month we released a final report documenting our findings and recommendations.

The working group found that much has changed since the law was first enacted, including the American public’s growing understanding of and appreciation for species conservation. Today, there are countless examples of effective conservation programs at the state and local level that respect multiple sets of values. Those who live near, work on, and enjoy our lands, waters, and wildlife show a tremendous commitment to conserving natural resources and a capability to do so without creating unnecessary conflicts with people. This boom in conservation awareness is a success story in and of itself, but the working group found that the ESA has simply fallen behind our ability to conserve and recover species. Instead, the ESA is stuck in a litigation-driven model that rewards those who prefer to use the courtroom at the expense of those who actually practice positive conservation efforts.

In our final report, the Working Group identified several specific areas for improvement. First and foremost, we need to update the ESA to make it more successful where it matters most – recovering species. Actual boots-on-the-ground conservation helps species far more than flowery courtroom speeches.

Another essential step towards improving the ESA is ensuring its transparency in the decisions and scientific data surrounding it. People deserve to actually see the evidence that the federal government is using for major ESA decisions, including listing a species as endangered, designating critical habitat, or using data as evidence for a species’ decline. Done poorly, these decisions can create significant economic burdens on citizens and impact private property and water rights. At the same time, it reduces the federal government’s ability to effectively and efficiently prioritize resources for the most imperiled species. To instill public confidence, these far-reaching decisions should be based on reliable data, and that data should be publicly available and accessible, particularly if it is taxpayer funded.

Moreover, ESA decisions lack credibility when they are made as a result of statutory deadlines and related lawsuit settlements written behind closed doors with no input from the people actually affected by the decisions. The groups that file these lawsuits often do so to enforce inflexible timeframes under the ESA that apply regardless of whether species are truly imperiled or not. That forces agencies into settlement agreements without the benefit of any public process. At the same time, these groups frequently receive taxpayer dollars to promote their views.
To make matters worse, the federal government does not track or maintain an accurate accounting of the costs to the American taxpayer for these lawsuits, settlements and resulting attorneys’ fees. As such, the working group recommends litigation transparency and reforms to curb excessive taxpayer-funded litigation. But most importantly, this recommendation will refocus federal efforts on real species recovery as opposed to prepping testimony for the courtroom.

Litigation abuses have also removed state wildlife management expertise and their scientific data out of the decision-making process. This is a departure from the intent of ESA provisions that require state consultation to encourage voluntary conservation efforts. The working group identified a need to empower states, tribes, local governments, and private individuals by giving them seats at the table in the ESA decisions that affect them. Just as important is harnessing their expertise and ensuring their data — which are often the best and most current — are prominently used in species recovery efforts."
 
sagebrush said:
Really? So requiring the data used as the basis of ESA decision making to be posted on the internet for public access before action is taken would not be of benefit? As it stands now, study data is quote by not available for review by the public. Allowing local stakeholders to be involved before action is taken would not be of benefit?

"Yesterday, the bipartisan Western Governors’ Association, led by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, issued a letter praising the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Congressional Working Group for its recent report and recommendations for improving the ESA. The letter specifically highlights their support for several areas of reform that align with the Working Group Report, including strengthening states’ role, greater use of state data and using sound science in ESA decisions, and clarity and transparency of ESA definitions. The letter states:

“Western Governors have called on Congress to amend and reauthorize the ESA. The Working Group’s report covers a breadth of ESA reform issues. We are particularly pleased to see that your recommendations call for significant enhancement of the role of states. The ESA statute is premised on a strong federal-state partnership but, in practice, the role of states has become increasingly limited over time. Western Governors encourage Congress to implement ESA reforms that reinstate the robust state engagement envisioned under the Act.”"

"The ESA has not been updated by Congress since 1988 and a lot has changed over the last two and a half decades. In 1988 there was no Internet in our homes, people sent letters instead of emails, we listened to music on a Walkman instead of an iPod, and no one had heard of smart phones or text messages. Today, we wouldn’t depend on technology from the 1980s and, similarly, we shouldn’t assume that a law last reviewed in the 1980s is the best and most effective for today’s world.

That’s why we formed an ESA working group last year to determine whether and how the law can be improved to work better for both species and people in the 21st Century.

The working group, consisting of thirteen Republican House Members from across the country, embarked on an eight month-long fact-finding mission. We fielded hundreds of public comments. We heard the testimony of 70 witnesses before the House Natural Resources Committee and held a public forum featuring a broad spectrum of views on the ESA. And earlier this month we released a final report documenting our findings and recommendations.

The working group found that much has changed since the law was first enacted, including the American public’s growing understanding of and appreciation for species conservation. Today, there are countless examples of effective conservation programs at the state and local level that respect multiple sets of values. Those who live near, work on, and enjoy our lands, waters, and wildlife show a tremendous commitment to conserving natural resources and a capability to do so without creating unnecessary conflicts with people. This boom in conservation awareness is a success story in and of itself, but the working group found that the ESA has simply fallen behind our ability to conserve and recover species. Instead, the ESA is stuck in a litigation-driven model that rewards those who prefer to use the courtroom at the expense of those who actually practice positive conservation efforts.

In our final report, the Working Group identified several specific areas for improvement. First and foremost, we need to update the ESA to make it more successful where it matters most – recovering species. Actual boots-on-the-ground conservation helps species far more than flowery courtroom speeches.

Another essential step towards improving the ESA is ensuring its transparency in the decisions and scientific data surrounding it. People deserve to actually see the evidence that the federal government is using for major ESA decisions, including listing a species as endangered, designating critical habitat, or using data as evidence for a species’ decline. Done poorly, these decisions can create significant economic burdens on citizens and impact private property and water rights. At the same time, it reduces the federal government’s ability to effectively and efficiently prioritize resources for the most imperiled species. To instill public confidence, these far-reaching decisions should be based on reliable data, and that data should be publicly available and accessible, particularly if it is taxpayer funded.

Moreover, ESA decisions lack credibility when they are made as a result of statutory deadlines and related lawsuit settlements written behind closed doors with no input from the people actually affected by the decisions. The groups that file these lawsuits often do so to enforce inflexible timeframes under the ESA that apply regardless of whether species are truly imperiled or not. That forces agencies into settlement agreements without the benefit of any public process. At the same time, these groups frequently receive taxpayer dollars to promote their views.
To make matters worse, the federal government does not track or maintain an accurate accounting of the costs to the American taxpayer for these lawsuits, settlements and resulting attorneys’ fees. As such, the working group recommends litigation transparency and reforms to curb excessive taxpayer-funded litigation. But most importantly, this recommendation will refocus federal efforts on real species recovery as opposed to prepping testimony for the courtroom.

Litigation abuses have also removed state wildlife management expertise and their scientific data out of the decision-making process. This is a departure from the intent of ESA provisions that require state consultation to encourage voluntary conservation efforts. The working group identified a need to empower states, tribes, local governments, and private individuals by giving them seats at the table in the ESA decisions that affect them. Just as important is harnessing their expertise and ensuring their data — which are often the best and most current — are prominently used in species recovery efforts."
Click to expand...



That's a lot of words, and none of them are for the benefit of hunters.


Laffin'
 
Top - I figured a few guys would read without comment and didn't want to leave Jackass Cuervo as the last comment.

If these bills do pass and make it through the Senate, we would have visibility into the "data" being used for things such as wolf re-introductions prior to the action being taken. We could challenge the source if needed and they would be required to give input from state G&F agencies the same consideration as the critter huggers. Much better to be informed and involved on the front end rather than dealing with the aftermath.
 
sagebrush said:
Top - I figured a few guys would read without comment and didn't want to leave Jackass Cuervo as the last comment.

If these bills do pass and make it through the Senate, we would have visibility into the "data" being used for things such as wolf re-introductions prior to the action being taken. We could challenge the source if needed and they would be required to give input from state G&F agencies the same consideration as the critter huggers. Much better to be informed and involved on the front end rather than dealing with the aftermath.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you are name calling. Guess I have been called worse.

Kinda funny you put out a bunch of anti-hunting propaganda on a hunting website, hoping ignorant people would support it. Then whine when "crickets" is all you get. And when it is shown not to be for the benefit of hunters, you resort to name calling.


Go back and read what you linked, and what you cut and pasted. Where does it say "to benefit hunting" or "for the benefit of hunters"?


I'll give you a hint, it doesn't. That was not the goal. How on earth, would the 4th one improve hunting? Just try to explain one of your links.

Laffin'
 
1_pointer said:
Is he wrong?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Those "hearings by House Nat Resources were parades of right wing donors and anti-public land groups for the most part. In MT, they tried to say that predators were the biggest threat to sage grouse when the science is pretty clear.

Sage Brush posted the talking points memo from the Committee, which has repeatedly tried to unfund, destory or gut every conservation program that the US has.

The political reality of these changes is that they pass the House and die in Senate. If Reid allos it to go to committee, it will go to EPW, which I believe is still chaired by Barbara Boxer. If, by some unfathomable trade or shenanigans, it does come out of committee and Reid lets it go to the floor, you still have to get by President Obama.

While I don't disagree that we need to update the ESA, we should also be looking at the programs that already exist to help landowners and states manage wildlife so that listing is prevented:

Programs like the State Wildlife Grants, Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, etc have been ravaged by the Interior Approps committee while the same Congressman rail against the ESA. It's a pretty deliberate case of starving current programs to "prove the ESA is broken."
 
Last edited:
Ben- Since you seem to think Jose was right, as do I, Topgun will be along to set you straight. After all he wouldn't made that post if he didn't think he was wrong.
 
Ben Lamb said:
I enjoy spirited conversation. ;)
Click to expand...

I just come here to be called a Jackass.

And to have my own personal stalker, TopGun follow me around on this thread like he has on the other ones I have posted on in the last 2 weeks. He doesn't seem to be able to add to these conversations, I think he just likes following me around.
 
Hey, if Jose is correct in his analysis of what was posted and Ben thinks he is and made some very sound comments to support his view, I'll be man enough to say I was wrong. From what I read on the surface there didn't appear to be anything to be overly concerned about. Looking into it deeper may be a lot different story!
 
So the government is going to do what it wants and will post their facts on the internet that support their decision. I never thought I would say this but here it goes " I kinda agree with Jose", lol.
 
Topgun 30-06 said:
Hey, if Jose is correct in his analysis of what was posted and Ben thinks he is and made some very sound comments to support his view, I'll be man enough to say I was wrong. From what I read on the surface there didn't appear to be anything to be overly concerned about. Looking into it deeper may be a lot different story!
Click to expand...
So was he wrong? ;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Please Help Habitat Montana
Replies
0
Views
493
Flynarrow
F
COEngineer
2024 CO Sportsmen's Day at the Capitol - Thursday 11 AM
Replies
0
Views
89
COEngineer
COEngineer
Ben Lamb
SB 442 - Habitat and Access
8 9 10
Replies
194
Views
15K
Elky Welky
Elky Welky
Ben Lamb
HB 243 - Mandatory In-Person Field Day for Hunters Ed
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
6K
Ben Lamb
Ben Lamb
nontyp
KS Legislative Update-get the word out!
Replies
7
Views
392
nontyp
nontyp

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,158
Messages
1,949,400
Members
35,063
Latest member
theghostbull

Share this page

Back
Top