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

[6mm Remington]

The Real Wolf by Ted Lyon & Will Graves

I'd really suggest that people on both sides of this issue should read this book. It is clearly researched information that would surprise and sadden a lot of folks at the same time as to what has taken place with the wolf in the lower 48.

David

 

[Schaaf]

The Real Wolf by Ted Lyon & Will Graves

I'd really suggest that people on both sides of this issue should read this book. It is clearly researched information that would surprise and sadden a lot of folks at the same time as to what has taken place with the wolf in the lower 48.

David

Lol. Think I’ll pass on the book that touts having contributions from experts such as Karen Budd-Falen and Don Peay.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's a great article and I think it does a great job of explaining the various sides, especially the folks that live with bears on a daily basis.

But I'm not sure we're to the point of a congressional delisting yet. The ruling on the G bear delisting was focused on habitat connectivity. I think that there can be a great case made that connectivity between the NCDE & GYE bears is occurring, but the Cabinet-Yaak issue, along with Idaho in general will continue to hamper things unless Congress goes back to the ESA and deals with delisting distinct population segments based on individual DPS estimates rather than delisting based upon recovery on their whole range. That's the issue with Wolves in the Great Lakes region a well.

For wolf delisting in MT & ID, it was because we were never going to get WY to change their plan and we were tired of being tied to their efforts just as much as we were tired of the back and forth on delisting rules. Molloy's ruling paved the path for that delisting, and he even acknowledged it was a political solution to the issue in that ruling.


We don't have that kind of justification for Grizz yet, and with the House in the hands of the Dems, I don't see a path forward on congressional delisting for any critter, let alone bears.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

Agreed... and the quote you presented;

"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."

Patagonia's puts money into a lot of projects, protecting public lands, stopping drilling in ANWAR, opposing mining in the boundary waters, etc. You suggesting that all their activism dollars goes to one thing, which is incredible misleading.

I think it's possible to be allies with a group and oppose them on others. I think it's awesome that Yvon is out there advocating for public lands. You wont' be able to fill a bit tent if you only invite people who agree with you on every single issue.

 

[Big Fin]

The Real Wolf by Ted Lyon & Will Graves

I'd really suggest that people on both sides of this issue should read this book. It is clearly researched information that would surprise and sadden a lot of folks at the same time as to what has taken place with the wolf in the lower 48.

David

Not that most folks would know this, but Ted Lyons asked for support from many folks who were involved with the wolf delisting process, including myself. The revisionist history and lack of completeness made it something I declined to support, as was the case with many other people who were far more engaged that the "Donny Come Lately" types. There is so much missing and so many steps that happened before Ted, Don, Ryan, et al decided to claim ownership of the income stream wolf-hysteria could provide. I see the book brought up when the wolf topic surfaces and I usually decline commenting.

Again, it would be impossible for most people to know some of the revisionist stuff unless they were in a lot of the meetings, on a lot of the calls, or included in many of the email chains.

 

[get-n-birdy]

Very sad that delisting has come to the point of public perception, with opinions based on feelings. We are well down the road of managing species off a certain criteria of skewed symbolism and ideology. From people far removed from geographical locations, that don't have any skin in the game, other than cash and a misguided sense of guilt and purpose.

Many well meaning, well educated people, with vast financial resources, have a fictionalized wildlife management goal.

We are in a fight, although different from what the great conservationists of the past dealt with, eerily similar.

My fear is, the ball has already started rolling down the hill, to now we call preservationists or environmentalists, conservationists. With no realistic expectations of managing a renewable resource. Who want to fight a fight, just to fight for a strict fundamental, zealous ideology that in their minds cannot be swayed or challenged by facts or reality. That's a hard dynamic to rationalize with or open up an honest dialogue.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

[Society is full of people] who want to fight a fight, just to fight for a strict fundamental, zealous ideology that in their minds cannot be swayed or challenged by facts or reality.

- Can be applied to every major issue of our time.

 

[BrentD]

- Can be applied to every major issue of our time.

And every side of the firing line on each of those major issues. There are combatants for the cause and combatants for the battle. Many do not know which type of combatant he or she is.

 

[Sytes]

Wllm, "...delisting, etc". "Etc" is clearly present. I am far from interested in listing the various organizations Chouinard feeds $ merely to appease those in organizations that have absorbed his ideals... hey, Sierra Club states they are public lands supporters and with sly tongue also speak a tid bit about hunting. May be a great ally as well... though that's another subject. We all choose to financially support clothing companies and organizations based on our positions.

This thread is not related to public lands though. it is specific to the ESA and grizzlies, with mention of wolves within the same setting. With respect to this thread... Patagonia is staunchly opposed to any attempt to delist wolves or grizzlies that have certainly made a successful return. The point of ESA.

According to Yvon Chouinard, with climate change, slow reproduction, they will become extinct if "Trophy Hunting" of Yellowstone grizzlies are legal. He is spending $ and cheering along with the judicial rulings that harm the support of ESA as described within the article.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

[According to Yvon Chouinard] He is spending $ and cheering along with the judicial rulings that harm the support of ESA as described within the article.

True and accurate. I had issue saying all Patagonia's 91m were going towards this fights. People and orgs are complex and nuanced.

 

[get-n-birdy]

And every side of the firing line on each of those major issues. There are combatants for the cause and combatants for the battle. Many do not know which type of combatant he or she is.

Well stated.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the ruling vacating the delisting rule. It's worth the read, especially for everyone who thinks that this was done to mollify the mood of anyone on either side.

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.tow...-5932-b56c-486486964f55/5ba97dacdb046.pdf.pdf

 

[BrentD]

Interesting reading indeed, Ben.

I just read through all 48 pages, albeit quickly. Not having attempted to dive into the GYE grizzly literature, I cannot say for sure that the judge is wrong, but certainly, one has to admit that the judge definitely listened to the science. He seems to have listened quite carefully. He may have heard/understood wrongly, but he listened. In that 48 pages, I find little evidence to support, "...the judiciary that has ruled in their favor, not based on the science or population objectives...". Maybe I would change my mind if I read the literature that is cited here, but I'm doubtful given what the judge has said in mostly very clear terms. In fact, I find he seems to have a surprisingly strong understanding of what he is talking about, unlike many others I have observed with other species.

As I said at the beginning, I am not a fan of politically built detours around established regulations and laws. They often become super highways and get used to haul loads far beyond the original cargo that was intended. Many of you are thinking in terms of species of just a few intensely, nationally, charismatic species like wolves and gbears, but when that detour gets applied to less charismatic species that stand in the way of big developers or whatever, the bulldozers will be swift and decisive and the result will be irreversible. The ESA is far more important than just wolves and gbears. Having worked on some of those less nationally visible species, I can assure you there is little other than the ESA standing between them and a D10 Cat.

This is not a discussion that is well served on a forum, but rather over a good Scotch Ale around a campfire or maybe with a Blizzard in the cab of truck on a long haul to somewhere.

I had no problem believing the Wyoming hunting season posed little immediate risk to the bear population. But to hold that season would also mean taking the bears off the list, and reverting all control to the states BEFORE (in his judgement) the bears are recovered. And his definition of recovery is quite scientifically defensible. It's not armchairing.

Fire at will.

 

[jrabq]

And his definition of recovery is quite scientifically defensible.

Maybe it is, but it also seems like the "goal posts" keep moving, and only in one direction.

 

[BrentD]

jrabq, that is not how I read this document. Like I said, I am not in a position to judge all that has gone before but I know a trick or two about population biology and having read this document, it's not garbage, it is not indefensible, the judge is not out to lunch in what he says are problems with the Service's position.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Just to add onto the conversation, I don't think many people realize how many bears die due to human-bear conflicts each year. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I believe here in Wyoming we had a quota of 10 bears for last year's hunting season before the courts caused a halt to the hunt. Idaho had a similar quota as well. According to the USGS, (linked below), over 65 bears were killed last year, with a majority of these being human caused for management purposes.

https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/201...ear-mortalities-greater-yellowstone-ecosystem

It is frustratingly ironic that people will donate to the cause of saving the Yellowstone grizzly bears through a misuse of the ESA and litigation. Furthermore, that action takes direct dollars away from state agencies that would use hunting tag sales to fund more conservation and habitat enhancement efforts for these bears. I grew up around this issue and can definitely sympathize with the old-time Rancher's perspective from the NPR article, that being said I do enjoy seeing bears and wolves in the State. From what I have seen directly here in WY, our state wildlife biologists and game managers have a MUCH better understanding of the grizzly situation than most federal biologists I have talked with who are familiar with the issue. Hopefully we see some advancement on the issue in the next year.

 

[get-n-birdy]

jrabq, that is not how I read this document. Like I said, I am not in a position to judge all that has gone before but I know a trick or two about population biology and having read this document, it's not garbage, it is not indefensible, the judge is not out to lunch in what he says are problems with the Service's position.

Can you quantify where exactly the judge is not out to lunch on the service's position and the problems that aren't justifiable with their stance?

Analyzing impacts and deciding what studies are and aren't relevant, can assumingly be very subjective. It's dealing in an endless see of "what if's" and hypotheticals. The system, wants the service to predict the future, with a 100% guarantee. How is that theoretically even remotely possible?

 

[JDH]

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.

The law that allows for reimbursement definitely needs modified. It has been awhile but I also remember a podcast(Meateater?) discussing about how the grizzly population is actually way higher than what the official estimate is due to the formula/methods used. Could that be fixed too?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It seems like both sides do in fact want the bears to be recovered, given this ruling which if I'm reading it correctly is arguing that you can't just de-list the GYE population why not speed up the process and start trapping and relocating bears to the other six regions? Wouldn't taking 35 or so bears a year out of the GYE and moving them to the Cabinet-Yaak or Selkirk be a decent compromise?

 

[BrentD]

Can you quantify where exactly the judge is not out to lunch on the service's position and the problems that aren't justifiable with their stance?

Analyzing impacts and deciding what studies are and aren't relevant, can assumingly be very subjective. It's dealing in an endless see of "what if's" and hypotheticals. The system, wants the service to predict the future, with a 100% guarantee. How is that theoretically even remotely possible?

You can read through it yourself, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the judge's concern with inbreeding, lack of population connectivity, general guestimate about Ne (effective population size), and then the parameter value for the projection model which he points out the Service changed, but did not justify or defend well (if it is, in fact, justifiable and defensible).

Like I said, this is the only document I've read on this issue but it is not out of left field or completely crazy. It is well reasoned with respect to itself (no glaring self contraditions) and the science (the topics covered are valid ones and his understanding of them is about right). Whether his evaluation of issues such as population connectivity (or the lack there of) is right, depends on data that I do not see. So in the end, he may well be wrong in the details, but he knows and understands more than some here might think. It sounds like he is claiming, in essence, the Service is saying, "Trust us" and he is replying, not so fast.

That's really all I'm going to say about it, unless you offer me a good Scotch Ale or a Blizzard. Then I will say anything you like.