Sage Grouse in HR 6398

[Justabirdwatcher]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6938/text

Sage-grouse
Sec. 119. None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to write or issue pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533)—
(1) a proposed rule for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus);
(2) a proposed rule for the Columbia basin distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse.

 

[Big Fin]

WTH. I missed that one.

So, evidently we want to have an ESA listing for sage grouse, something we narrowly dodged in 2015. If that happens, the entire west is going to be critical habitat subject to ESA restrictions.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

WTH. I missed that one.

So, evidently we want to have an ESA listing for sage grouse, something we narrowly dodged in 2015. If that happens, the entire west is going to be critical habitat subject to ESA restrictions.

Doesn't this say the opposite?

 

[406dn]

Doesn't this say the opposite?

I did not read it, but I'd be shocked if you are wrong on this.

The Sage Grouse is truly in trouble, but the economic costs to save them are very high. I have watched their numbers plummet in my adult life. They will be gone in fifty or so years. Maybe their DNA will stay frozen.

 

[Big Fin]

Doesn't this say the opposite?

Maybe my reading comprehension sucks. I read it again. I still came away with the same understanding.

 

[El Jason]

Maybe my reading comprehension sucks. I read it again. I still came away with the same understanding.

I’m reading it the same way.

 

[TX Trophy Hunter]

First paragraph of section 4 of ESA. Looks to me like congress is blocking the Secretary from implementing the ESA on sage grouse.​

​

§1533. Determination of endangered species and threatened species​

(a) Generally​

(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I’m reading it as budget appropriation with the caveat that none of that money can be used by Sec of Interior to put SG under an ESA protection.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Maybe my reading comprehension sucks. I read it again. I still came away with the same understanding.

I'm reading that no funding is provided to issue rules. I just saw something about a review regarding range wide and Columbia Basin DPS, which made me scratch my head because that DPS was determined/decided not to be a DPS at the last not warranted decision. Now I can't find what I was thinking of. Our local grouse meeting is tomorrow, maybe more info will be shared, but I read this as no changes to current status are allowed based on lack of funding, guessing it's preemptive to the review that was supposed to happen.

 

[marksjeep]

On the heels of this thread posted yesterday.

https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/farewell-to-the-local-wyoming-sage-grouse-working-groups.331826/

 

[kwyeewyk]

So this rider has been included in the budget for several years now, the 2015 not warranted decision included direction to review population and threat status every 5 years, but this rider has been in the budget most years since to prevent any new rules regarding sage-grouse. Columbia basin DPS is not currently recognized, but WDFW has been requesting that it be considered again so that is why it is called out specifically.

Short answer is this is not new and in short term will prevent listing, but in long term could impact actual recovery or further decline of the species and might eventually contribute to need to list.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Doesn't this say the opposite?

it doesn't preclude a judge from making the call.

In fact, it means only judges will make the call.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

it doesn't preclude a judge from making the call.

In fact, it means only judges will make the call.

That may very well be, but the legislation posted still doesn't say anything about wanting to put SG under ESA protection

 

[Ben Lamb]

That may very well be, but the legislation posted still doesn't say anything about wanting to put SG under ESA protection

The rider is supposed to prevent the USFWS from listing the sage grouse despite what the data says. However, by continuing to include this (it used to be included in the NDAA when I worked on the issue), it does invite the extra scrutiny that is coming to the issue now that Wyoming disbanded SGIT, etc.

If this keeps bd of stuff happens at the federal level, and the state commitments falter then I think a judicial listing is about 19-27% more likely to happen.

 

[BuzzH]

It inevitable at this point that sage grouse are going to be listed.

I really liked Wyoming's strategy and the buy in from so many individuals and groups. There was consensus for the most part in measures to keep habitat intact, management strategies, etc. to keep grouse off the list.

That ship sailed this past January.
Sage grouse are simply in the way of progress and profit. That simple. Too much has been compromised away and listing is going to happen.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

The rider is supposed to prevent the USFWS from listing the sage grouse despite what the data says. However, by continuing to include this (it used to be included in the NDAA when I worked on the issue), it does invite the extra scrutiny that is coming to the issue now that Wyoming disbanded SGIT, etc.

Wyoming did not disband the SGIT. They disbanded the Local Working Groups. Funding that used to go to the LWG's has been shifted to the SGIT. SGIT still exists, meets, helps develop policy and takes public comment.