rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,106
I was listening to the most recent podcast with Ryan Callaghan and Kit Fischer (which was great BTW) and something was brought up that I've wondered about for a while:
What's the end game or long-term desired result of the Utah Delegation w/ SFW and BGF in trying to block other western states' management plans for wolves or sage grouse or anything else? What are they looking to accomplish? Is it to tie up critical management needs so badly that people get frustrated enough for PLT to sound good? Is it that they fear that once a habitat conservation model is set up and becomes successful in another state that they will have to follow that same model, which might get in the way of industry?
What am I missing? Attempting to block other states' carefully thought out management plans (which could lead to ESA listing for sage grouse, and which would have kept wolves listed) doesn't make any sense on the surface. Anyone have insight on what the underlying motives are?
What's the end game or long-term desired result of the Utah Delegation w/ SFW and BGF in trying to block other western states' management plans for wolves or sage grouse or anything else? What are they looking to accomplish? Is it to tie up critical management needs so badly that people get frustrated enough for PLT to sound good? Is it that they fear that once a habitat conservation model is set up and becomes successful in another state that they will have to follow that same model, which might get in the way of industry?
What am I missing? Attempting to block other states' carefully thought out management plans (which could lead to ESA listing for sage grouse, and which would have kept wolves listed) doesn't make any sense on the surface. Anyone have insight on what the underlying motives are?