Excellent piece on Grizzlies, the ESA, and the corrosive impacts of excess litigation

[Big Fin]

This article by NPR touches on points I have been making since the wolf litigation started in 2004. As much as I hate to see Congress intervene or state legislatures intervene, I think the litigators run a serious risk of having such happen on Grizzly Bears. I would fully support any politician who would do the same for Grizzly Bears that Simpson and Tester did for wolves; Congressionally delist and make it exempt from judicial review.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/02/6885...q5J-dI6qxsWQsfqTAoBheSqDM3C5xPaZe9Q66jYtDL4bA

 

[mtmuley]

Thanks Randy. mtmuley

 

[sschultz]

Good story

 

[cheeser]

you could replace wolf for grizzly in this discussion for us in the midwest in MN,WIS and MI

 

[Sytes]

Agree. Get it out of the filthy $$$ funneled from the likes of Patagonia, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, "Center for Biological Studies" - funded by Patagonia's Action Works. Same groups involved in the opposition towards fighting delisting of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan...
It matters where your $ goes. Example: Patagonia has funded $91,000,000 to fight delisting, etc.

Thanks to Senator Tester and Simpson for flanking these extremists. ESA is losing its credibility when nationally, within the concrete jungles where families have a fraction of experience with a once in a lifetime visit to Yellowstone or Glacier, meanwhile unknowingly absorb Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, spew his wolf and grizzly sad stories about the brutality of "Trophy Hunting"...

 

[Scott85]

I was worried about the article when I saw it was NPR but I was wrong. It was a great article with a true look on what is really going on.

 

[BrentD]

I am not enthused about the idea at all. This opens the door for all ESA species to be managed by politics rather than science. Not that politics has no role now, it does, HUGELY. But when end runs like this become the norm, and I feel it will, it simply ends the role of science.

Just my opinion as someone that is worked on 3 federally endangered species.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Good article, thanks for sharing. It takes involved, informed, frontline stakeholders like Trina Jo Bradley to step up and be heard. Kudos to her perseverance.

 

[Big Fin]

I am not enthused about the idea at all. This opens the door for all ESA species to be managed by politics rather than science. Not that politics has no role now, it does, HUGELY. But when end runs like this become the norm, and I feel it will, it simply ends the role of science.

Just my opinion as someone that is worked on 3 federally endangered species.

Like you, I'm not enthused about the idea either. But, just like I'm not enthused about the idea of having to finish off an animal I may have hit poorly with my first shot, I have to deal with the reality of the situation. The reality of this situation is that the litigation abuse has grown to the point that there is eroding faith in not just the ESA, but the USFWS who is charged with enforcing it, which to me is another huge problem with far reaching consequences.

The litigators and judges take no heat for their involvement or decisions. The frustrated and uninformed public see it as "The Feds" and "The Feds" get the blame; the USFWS gets the blame. Most people don't realize that with wolves and grizzlies, the USFWS is who is getting sued by these litigators for the delisting decision they have made. That is how the litigators want it. They suffer no adverse consequence and the cash registers keep ringing.

I wish it was different, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. I remember when the Congressional delisting of wolves happened and there was screaming among the litigators. They did tone things down for a bit. Now, with Grizzly Bears, they are back to their old ways and emboldened by the judiciary that has ruled in their favor, not based on the science or population objectives, rather other "crystal ball" hypotheticals.

"Relisting" by continual litigation gives no role to science, either. Every bear biologist who is not a paid mouthpiece for the litigators agrees that recovery has been met. Yet, the courts and the process of litigation ignore all of that science.

That is my opinion as someone who has volunteered thousands of hours over the last 25 years to the cause of delisting wolves and grizzly bears. Where we are today is a despicable position, arrived at by excessive litigation and a spineless Congress unwilling to change the mechanisms by which the litigators are able to grind the entire process to a hault.

 

[Nameless Range]

That was a real good article. This seems to be the crux that those who are opposed to delisting for fear of state management don't seem to get.

"The future of grizzly bears is in the hands of the people who live, work and recreate in bear habitat," he says. "And if those people feel that no matter what they do, nothing's ever going to change, nothing's ever good enough, then they won't invest the time in helping with recovery."

 

[MTGomer]

l Example: Patagonia has funded $91,000,000 to fight delisting, etc.

“Kissing Yvon’s ass at the rendezvous is paramount to the future of hunting”

 

[VikingsGuy]

But when end runs like this become the norm, and I feel it will, it simply ends the role of science.

I see both sides on this issue, but sadly judges are no more likely to listen to science than anybody else. They are typically political creatures who were political appointees via a political process. In areas touched by politics or emotion, you can predict any given judge's ruling with about 90% certainty if you know what they did before appointment, who appointed them and their first year of rulings - science may be a rationale/rationalization for them, but it is rarely the decider either left or right.

 

[jryoung]

Example: Patagonia has funded $91,000,000 to fight delisting, etc.

Not to derail this, but do you have a source for that number?

 

[MTGomer]

That’s a pile of money. I think there’s too many zeros there. Patagonia has thrown big money at fighting delisting but 91M is ALOT.

 

[Sytes]

Specific to this thread, the reason Tester and Simpson had to work their method to oppose organizations that have found their $$$ working the litigation in opposition of delisting Grizzlies (edit: and as mentioned within the article shared in the OP, wolves)

Founded by Yvon Chouinard in 1973, Patagonia is an outdoor company based in Ventura, California. A Certified B Corp, Patagonia’s mission is to build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm and use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis. The company is recognized internationally for its commitment to authentic product quality and environmental activism, contributing nearly $90 million to date in grants and in-kind donations.

Agree. Get it out of the filthy $$$ funneled from the likes of Patagonia, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, "Center for Biological Studies" - funded by Patagonia's Action Works. Same groups involved in the opposition towards fighting delisting of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan...
It matters where your $ goes. Example: Patagonia has funded $91,000,000 to fight delisting, etc.

https://www.patagonia.com/actionworks/grantees/save-the-yellowstone-grizzly/

Save the Yellowstone Grizzly is a campaign organized to fight the removal of Endangered Species Act protections from Yellowstone National Park’s grizzly bears and avert the possibility of a trophy hunt.

https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2018/09/judge-ends-grizzly-hunts-with-ruling-thats-bigger-than-bears/

So far in this young century, few wildlife conservation issues have galvanized more Americans than whether or not Western state governments ought to allow grizzly bears to be hunted again. On Monday, September 24, 2018, U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen in Missoula, Montana, resolved the matter for the foreseeable future.

In a 48-page decision, Christensen ordered that grizzlies inhabiting the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem be restored to protected status as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Trophy hunts planned for this autumn in Wyoming (targeting 22 grizzlies) and Idaho (one bear) have been postponed indefinitely, much to the delight of millions of bear advocates and 200 indigenous communities.

 

[LopeHunter]

Congress should act. Modify the ESA so a law firm can't make a living by being reimbursed from the ESA trust fund for bringing lawsuits no matter if win or lose those lawsuits. Otherwise, the court games will continue leading to species by species Congressional action marching forward with regional bipartisanship.

I have encountered grizzlies in Wyoming. The first time was north of Cody a month after grizzlies "den" per the Bear Aware warning signs along the roadway so that was not reassuring to see a grizzly at first light less than 100 yards away rolling deadfall logs looking for rodents. There were a couple of dozen mule deer on the side of the same ridge with a few between me and the bear so that was slightly reassuring. The second time was a 10 minute jog from downtown Jackson.

I enjoy having bears and wolves and mountain lions and coyotes and bobcats and other predators in the ecosystem. None of those are endangered by any reasonable measure.

 

[jryoung]

That’s a pile of money. I think there’s too many zeros there. Patagonia has thrown big money at fighting delisting but 91M is ALOT.

Agreed, I can't imagine they've incurred 90% of their lifetime spend in the last two years, for a single issue.

 

[jryoung]

This article by NPR touches on points I have been making since the wolf litigation started in 2004. As much as I hate to see Congress intervene or state legislatures intervene, I think the litigators run a serious risk of having such happen on Grizzly Bears. I would fully support any politician who would do the same for Grizzly Bears that Simpson and Tester did for wolves; Congressionally delist and make it exempt from judicial review.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/02/6885...q5J-dI6qxsWQsfqTAoBheSqDM3C5xPaZe9Q66jYtDL4bA

In my circles here on the edge of the pacific when topics like wolves and bears come up I think most have an aha moment and realize the potential danger for one of our landmark pieces of legislation. When I would frame it with both houses and the executive office held by one party and splitting maul grade adjustments out there as opposed to scalpel eyes got wide. I think the success of Simpson Tester is a good example, but again potentially playing with fire.

 

[406LIFE]

I can't see grizzlies getting delisted without a Congressional act. As the ESA stands now and the litigation around it, support will only continue to erode. When I first heard of repealing or replacing, I was opposed. Now, I see the need for real reform of it, and possibly the Equal Access to Justice Acts as well. What the anti-delisting groups probably don't see is if they keep this up, SSS will become the order of the day from what otherwise would have been conservations wanting the megafauna.

 

[Sytes]

Agreed, I can't imagine they've incurred 90% of their lifetime spend in the last two years, for a single issue.

Who said this?

Patagonia is owned outright by Yvon Chouinard (Not publicly traded) thus I am not familiar with how to go about collecting the specific $$ value they have spent to stuff up the judicial system. Anyone know a way to identify what percentage of $ they have spent to pay for the opposition of delisting wolves and grizzlies?