Grizz hunting is over

[El Jason]

one man fiat.. its a broken system when some clown who has no knowledge of a subject overturns the actual science. thats a disgrace.

Actually, I think it points to how difficult it is to meet all mandates of federal law and agency policy when going through the delisting process.

 

[BigHornRam]

Actually, I think it points to how difficult it is to meet all mandates of federal law and agency policy when going through the delisting process.

Actually I think it points out how much politics weighs in the science of the delisting process. The fact that it took the judge this long to rule on this, tells me the judge knows that this ruling will eventually be overturned.

 

[jtm307]

... the judge knows that this ruling will eventually be overturned.

I suspect you're right. As far as I can tell, the judge based the order on personal opinion, not law. Assuming this case goes all the way, this doesn't bode well for the folks who oppose the grizzly hunt.

 

[El Jason]

Actually I think it points out how much politics weighs in the science of the delisting process. The fact that it took the judge this long to rule on this, tells me the judge knows that this ruling will eventually be overturned.

In an ideal world, personal agendas and opinions would never weigh into the judicial process. That said, I'm not so naïve as to thing it never happens.

 

[Mallardsx2]

That'd be my guess. I heard lots of barstool talk about the hound runners eradicating packs and didn't believe it at first. Then areas me and other people I know that used to be full of wolves had none. Then not much complaints about wolves anymore. Again, right or wrong, I find it ironic that the relisting has probably had the opposite effect on the population. People want to obey the laws but get sick of crooked politics making them.

X5

I also heard rumor that a wolf tracking collar got placed on a train and the Fed's couldn't figure out how it got to California so fast.

If any of the rumors I read were true or no I have no clue as I have never even been to the state.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm only part way through the judge's 48 page ruling, but if I am understanding it correctly, she isn't contesting whether or not the GYE segment alone qualifies for delisting. It seems as though the "Service" thought that it was unnecessary to see how their delisting would impact the other distinct groups since they proposed keeping them listed. Apparently the court saw this as necessary per the 5-factor ESA analysis. I'm not a lawyer, but that is how I've interpreted what I've read so far.

I haven't started down the rabbit hole of the decision yet, but this is my understanding as well. It stems from the Great Lakes decision on delisting criteria needing to take into account all of the historic range, not just distinct population segments. I don't think that will be resolved by the courts, until it gets to the Supreme Court. I've never thought that the DPS rule was particularly good, but it did allow for more lenient management in some instances. Now, it seems to be an achilles heel that will require congressional action rather than administrative. Hopefully congress doesn't screw up ESA reform like they do everything else.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Everyone had to know this was coming. They will keep taking cases to the Montana judges that please them until something changes.

 

[BrentD]

Especially when only 1 of those could be female. As far as I know the harvest of boars has very little effect on the population in the grand scheme.

That might be true in the short term, however, a large portion of the genetic variation in the population can reside in those boars. So they do have important population value in the long run. I have no idea if 20 of them would matter over that region or not, but the value of a bear is more than just its contribution to N.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Its too bad they couldn't set out some kind of trap that had human scent on it that when they approached it it turned into a lasting memory for the bear.

If they truly feared humans like a black bear, we wouldn't be having this discussion up until the point that they were affecting a preferred species.

 

[BigHornRam]

Everyone had to know this was coming. They will keep taking cases to the Montana judges that please them until something changes.

Little background on the Montana judge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_L._Christensen

 

[BigHornRam]

In an ideal world, personal agendas and opinions would never weigh into the judicial process. That said, I'm not so naïve as to thing it never happens.

Same with the judicial selection process. Look at the shit show going on right now. Disgraceful.

 

[3855WIN]

https://kpax.com/news/montana-outdo...ked-by-grizzly-bear-on-blackfeet-tribal-land/

 

[Stretcher_Jockey]

Same with the judicial selection process. Look at the shit show going on right now. Disgraceful.

I hope to not derail the conversation from the original topic, but as awful as the shenanigans are with Kavanaugh, seems like a giant glass house the Republicans are living in being so up in arms over the other side trying to derail Kavanaugh after they refused to even let Merrick Garland begin going through the process after he was nominated.

 

[Stretcher_Jockey]

That might be true in the short term, however, a large portion of the genetic variation in the population can reside in those boars. So they do have important population value in the long run. I have no idea if 20 of them would matter over that region or not, but the value of a bear is more than just its contribution to N.

Fair enough. I shouldn’t have and didn’t really intend to state that as matter of factly as I did. My bad.

 

[Twolftg]

So I know about the wolfs hunting getting stopped in WI and MI. I wasn't sure were that stood did people just quit trying to get them de-listed again?

Have people really started to just shoot them?

It was also stopped in Minnesota and we have thr largest population of wolves in the lower 48. People have not stop fighting to return it to state control but like anything it's a tough battle against the antis.

 

[3855WIN]

I hope to not derail the conversation from the original topic, but as awful as the shenanigans are with Kavanaugh, seems like a giant glass house the Republicans are living in being so up in arms over the other side trying to derail Kavanaugh after they refused to even let Merrick Garland begin going through the process after he was nominated.

There wasn’t a smear campaign against Garland.

 

[belly-deep]

Maybe Randy should volunteer as an in-field ambassador to take the Judge on a hike up the Taylor Fork before the next court hearing. He might decide there’s plenty of bears after that tour.

 

[smarandr]

I haven't started down the rabbit hole of the decision yet, but this is my understanding as well. It stems from the Great Lakes decision on delisting criteria needing to take into account all of the historic range, not just distinct population segments. I don't think that will be resolved by the courts, until it gets to the Supreme Court. I've never thought that the DPS rule was particularly good, but it did allow for more lenient management in some instances. Now, it seems to be an achilles heel that will require congressional action rather than administrative. Hopefully congress doesn't screw up ESA reform like they do everything else.

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but I get the sense the judge is correctly applying a bad law/rule in the decision, and even if there were tens of thousands of bears roaming the countryside it wouldn't be enough to overcome the historic range/DPS issue?

 

[BrentD]

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but I get the sense the judge is correctly applying a bad law/rule in the decision, and even if there were tens of thousands of bears roaming the countryside it wouldn't be enough to overcome the historic range/DPS issue?

Given the precedence of species like wolves and alligators, not to mention almost every game species that has never been endangered, I think that logic would be hard to hide behind, though that may be what he is doing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but I get the sense the judge is correctly applying a bad law/rule in the decision, and even if there were tens of thousands of bears roaming the countryside it wouldn't be enough to overcome the historic range/DPS issue?

I think largely, yes.

The decision on the Great Lakes wolf delisting is having this effect. I don't think that's what the framers of the ESA wanted, nor has it been how the act has historically been applied. We ran in to some of this with Rocky Mountain wolf delisting, but the major issue with that in the west was non-approval of the Wyoming plan and not being able to subdivide the DPS to specific state boundaries.

I participated in a Western Gov's Assn effort to find some reforms that all could support for the esa in 2015 - 2016 and there were a lot of good ideas that mostly came down to implementation and administration changes, rather than legislative.