This just in...Feds/wolves/courts
- Thread starter Zach
- Start date
J
Jason73
Guest
Maybe the fact that some person from New York City that comes to see the pretty wolves isn't taking on substantial loses from wolves killing their livestock?
Steve Petersen
Active member
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
- Messages
- 210
Nothing. I hang my tree stands in them. Now squirrels I do hate those little tree rats.
Not sure what species you were involved with and what spacial landscape demands they required, but I would argue that in the case of high level species such as wolves and grizzly bears, the expansive landscape needs required for "recovery" is going to place the overwhelming majority of costs on locals.
Yes, locals do have some activities that might create problems. That is a very small part of the social complex in the case of GBs or wolves.
I can give many examples of large costs born by locals. Some would say those changes were needed and "good riddance." But regardless, they are changes that came with impacts to locals and their lives.
Not that changes to logging on Federal lands to accommodate grizzlies is only the reason for the mill closure (and hundreds of jobs) in Belgrade, MT, but it was surely a contributing factor, among the many. When tourism businesses are pushed to different operating areas and operating dates, those have impacts. When motorized travel restrictions are implemented across huge landscapes, many historical and traditional activities get changed, often terminated. When building your structure on private land requires significant consideration and costs to accommodate species, that is a cost born locally, not by litigators. When hunters or trappers, a legacy activity on these landscapes, now have to change how/when they do activities they've done for decades, that is a cost/imposition born locally. When your state agencies incur millions of dollars of costs for new management mandates, the majority of that is born locally. I could go on and on, just in the case of GBs.
Again, some of those changes are helpful. Some of those I personally supported for my own selfish reasons. But, they represent changes and accommodations, nonetheless; often significant changes. And to those locals expected or required to make the change, when they do make that change, they expect the deal to be honored.
It is easy to demand these changes on public land. Everyone understands, or should understand, that when you do business on public lands, you are at the mercy of the public land owners.
When you start placing expectations of private business owners and private landowners, whether operating on public, private, or a mixture of both, things start getting a lot more complicated. Especially when you have multi-million acre recovery areas.
When communities and their economies evolve on public-private landscapes the changes to public land policy is mostly born by those locals and their businesses. Those businesses support lives, schools, communities, so the entire social system is impacted. I am not familiar with recovery and conservation strategies for other species, but I hold that when it comes to GBs and wolves, across immense landscapes, the costs and burdens are born disproportionately by locals and not even at an ancillary level by a professional litigator in Tucson, AZ.
Now, now. We have to take the populist vote into opinion. I mean they want to shoot the pigeons and rats out of their apartment but that’s wayyy more different than killing wolves that eat cattle.
BrentD
Well-known member
"some" and "might"? Randy, that's, hmmm, maybe a slight understatement.
And, in pretty much every case, it was locals that created the problem in the first place, albeit some generations ago.
This is all about politics now. And that won't change.
Its about politics when you want it to be about politics and are out of answers.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I do as well.
I find it absurd that CPW is posting about the first wolf puppy collared in Colorado and also about the next stakeholder meeting for reintroduction.
Sitting here I’m experiencing a weird dissonance arguing for the ESA while also dealing with raptor nests and sage grouse leks for work in planning where our rig moves next.
“Multi-million acre recovery area”… like the Powder or Jonah?
Sage grouse and muleys are different, but yet you yourself have advocated for policies that have a big effect on companies with billions in sunk costs.
My point is it’s worth it to me, it’s worth it to deal with the litigation BS it’s worth it spend hours on habitat planning for WY which I don’t do in other basins. It’s worth it to contract with the best enviro consulting firms to help us navigate the system and make sure we cross the T’s and dot the I’s and minimize impact.
Not what I meant. I was commenting on the GYE, and areas of MT, ID, and WY. But for those areas you mention, yeah, those are big areas.
Yes, I have. Many differences. I don't have the power of the ESA to force changes I've advocated for. I might be able to show some flaws in an EIS, but that is nowhere near the powers of the ESA.
I wasn't allowed to be at the table and reach an agreement that said, "You do X and we promise Y as the reward." That example is apples and bike tires compared with an introduction of wolves or a listing/delisting of species already governed by the ESA.
Those policies I advocated for were to prevent declines, possible delisting. The effects I mention in my post were agreed to, negotiated and completed, with a promised outcome. When achieved, the rewards were never realized.
Those same things are worth it to me. The best were hired - there are no better GB or wolf biologists/scientists than those who crafted these recovery plans. We did cross the known T's and dot the known I's at the time. It didn't matter.
The species you are currently advocating to help are not covered by the ESA, though they may be some day. The deference granted to any aggrieved party under the ESA gives a level of power to litigators not found in any other wildlife legal context. Once you are operating under true ESA umbrella, you will not be able to do cross every T or dot every I, or at least not to the satisfaction of opponents or a few carefully selected judges.
I hope you don't find yourself crossing every T, dotting every I, going beyond every request made, only to find you still haven't done enough.
I'll stand by my opposition. The benefits of a species reintroduction is not worth it to me to see this process continue to get abused and the breach of trust continue. That needs to change or expect less conservation, not more.
This dead horse again?
J
Jason73
Guest
But it's not.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@Big Fin appreciate the responses, would you mind sharing your thoughts on my hunting comment?
Black bears in Louisiana, the management plan says no hunting for 7 years, I believe. I didn’t even know they were delisted till today when I looked it up. I’m sure they will be managed with hunting at some point. Seems like that method tamped down opposition.
If you could turn back time and advocate that states submit plans with a 5 year study period after delisting with no hunting, then hunting after that time, do you think that would have made any difference?
Would we have gotten to hunting wolves faster in your opinion?
I guess my overarching point; to my knowledge Wolves and Grizzlies are the only species whose delisting meant immediate hunting, that had to make a difference in the amount of litigation?
Black bears in Louisiana, the management plan says no hunting for 7 years, I believe. I didn’t even know they were delisted till today when I looked it up. I’m sure they will be managed with hunting at some point. Seems like that method tamped down opposition.
If you could turn back time and advocate that states submit plans with a 5 year study period after delisting with no hunting, then hunting after that time, do you think that would have made any difference?
Would we have gotten to hunting wolves faster in your opinion?
I guess my overarching point; to my knowledge Wolves and Grizzlies are the only species whose delisting meant immediate hunting, that had to make a difference in the amount of litigation?
All I know is it ain't the wolves fault if I don't kill an elk. mtmuley
elkduds
Well-known member
Breaking news from CPW's Wolf Planners:
On Thursday, February 10, 2022, the United States District Court vacated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s (USFWS) 2020 rule delisting gray wolves across the lower 48 states. The status of wolves now returns to what it was before the 2020 delisting rule. This ruling returns management authority of gray wolves in Colorado to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife is reviewing the court’s decision and is in contact with the USFWS to understand the implications of this decision on Colorado’s gray wolf reintroduction process. We are moving quickly to schedule meetings and determine next steps. As potential impacts are identified, the information below will be updated accordingly.
"Prepare to stand by," Captain Obvious, 2022
I can assure you CPW anticipated relisting in structuring their reintro planning process.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022, the United States District Court vacated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s (USFWS) 2020 rule delisting gray wolves across the lower 48 states. The status of wolves now returns to what it was before the 2020 delisting rule. This ruling returns management authority of gray wolves in Colorado to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife is reviewing the court’s decision and is in contact with the USFWS to understand the implications of this decision on Colorado’s gray wolf reintroduction process. We are moving quickly to schedule meetings and determine next steps. As potential impacts are identified, the information below will be updated accordingly.
"Prepare to stand by," Captain Obvious, 2022
I can assure you CPW anticipated relisting in structuring their reintro planning process.
RobertD
Well-known member
As in drug their feet or?
J
Jason73
Guest
Maybe this will screw "Denvers" plan and this reintroduction bs will fail. Wishful thinking I'm sure.
Hmm. Never thought about that.
The American Alligator was listed under the ESA. When it was delisted in 1987, it was fully expected that it could be hunted, trapped, even sold for meat and hides when the populations allowed for such. They aren't Benjamin Bovines (cash cows) like wolves and Gbears, so I don't think the idea of hunting and trapping mattered. That was before litigation under the ESA was popular, but I think the fact that alligators are not a cash cow would have prevented any litigation over hunting, trapping, selling for meat/hides.
I don't know if a 5-year moratorium would have made any difference with a warm and fuzzy cash cow like grizzlies. I think it would be litigated no matter what and history supports that. Using history as an example, even before the states had started planning possible Gbear hunting seasons, the first to ESA delisting (2007) was litigated, even though there were no hunting seasons anywhere close on the horizon. To the point that there was immediate hunting plans for grizzlies, that is not the case in the first delisting.
The interesting fact is that we probably have an even more restrictive constraint on hunting Gbears int he GYE. Under the GYE conservation strategy, we have allowed human caused mortality limits/protections. Both for the total population and female subquota. That applies, even if delisted. See the chart below for the allowed human-caused mortalities, based on what the prior year population was within the Demographic Monitoring Areas (DMA).
So, if we exceed the human-caused mortality limits, like we have most years in the last decade, there would be no remaining allowed human-caused mortality and thus no hunting. So, there isn't a defined period, say in 5 years, rather there is a tighter constraint on when hunting would be allowed.
We also have the total population limit at which any discretionary mortalities (hunting) would cease. This is set at 600 bears. We have averaged 670 +/- for a long time. Now, new counting methods are being considered for better accuracy, but the litigators are fighting that, as then we have more cushion between what would likely be a higher count under the new method and the baseline of 600 bears below which all discretionary mortality is removed.
I guess the point for me is that hunting or no hunting, the cash incentives are just too high for the litigators to walk away from and take a victory lap to celebrate that we have recovered on the largest and most difficult species we have; grizzly bears.
I think the same comments above would apply to wolves. I mean look at the current ruling this week. Many of the states don't even have planned hunting seasons; CA, OR, WA, UT, CO, but rather than just focus on the states where hunting plans could be implemented, MN/WI/MI, they litigated for the entire country, whether hunting was or wasn't allowed. So, I think the hunting is just a good marketing tool that makes their efforts even more profitable, but they would litigate with or without hunting planned.
My own post script to this ramble - On the hunting side, I think too much focus is given to the notion that delisting is synonymous with hunting. The purpose of delisting isn't to create hunting seasons. The purpose is to make sure the population is no longer threatened and that the habitat criteria and management plans insure a long population above the set criteria. I think this is where hunters miss the mark. Delisting is not not an effort to establish hunting seasons. If we want hunting season, we need to make sure we have robust populations of whatever species, and those need to be far, far, above any establish criteria in a Federal Conservation Strategy or an approved state management plan.
elkduds
Well-known member
More like including that possible contingency in their planning. Their process involved extensive consultation w wolf planners from around the west, and a long series of public meetings to gather and provide information. Deliberate sandbagging? Probably not, but also not Let's Roll urgency.
Thus the Prepare to Stand By. I wouldn't rule it out. It is also significant that WY wolves have established a pack in CO's North Park, in flagrant violation of CO voters' will. One potential upside is that if CO reintro gets shelved, it will be a black eye for ballot box wildlife management, and the millions spent by out-of-CO deep pockets to influence our election will have been, um.
