This just in...Feds/wolves/courts

[Jason73]

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.

Love the optimism! Will be hoping you are correct!

 

[kwyeewyk]

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.

I get what you're saying and agree with a lot of it, but I'm curious about how you view the situation in terms of recovery outside the N. Rocky Mtn DPS, which is what this decision is about. Reading the background in the ruling it's obvious that there has been trouble identifying DPSs and having well defined objectives for recovery in each DPS.

I fully believe that wolves are recovered in NRM DPS, and probably in northern great lakes but no longer a DPS, less familiar with that, but I'm not so sure the other areas have really met the intent of recovery or at least haven't followed the proper process through the previous delisting.

Seems there needs to be a settlement on a better DPS analysis and clearly defined objectives for each DPS. There are a lot of holes in current recovery plan that for me need to be resolved before I feel like we can really say we can delist nationally.

 

[Jason73]

I get what you're saying and agree with a lot of it, but I'm curious about how you view the situation in terms of recovery outside the N. Rocky Mtn DPS, which is what this decision is about. Reading the background in the ruling it's obvious that there has been trouble identifying DPSs and having well defined objectives for recovery in each DPS.

I fully believe that wolves are recovered in NRM DPS, and probably in northern great lakes but no longer a DPS, less familiar with that, but I'm not so sure the other areas have really met the intent of recovery or at least haven't followed the proper process through the previous delisting.

Seems there needs to be a settlement on a better DPS analysis and clearly defined objectives for each DPS. There are a lot of holes in current recovery plan that for me need to be resolved before I feel like we can really say we can delist nationally.

Isn't the fact that multiple states offer wolf hunting opportunities enough? Not sure what I'm missing here.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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).

View attachment 212071
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.

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

When I think of delisting for Grizzlies what immediately comes to mind is the WY draw, and the famous photographer applying to get a tag to not hunt.

Wyoming Gives 22 Winners The Chance To Hunt Grizzlies — Or Not

A whopping 7,000 people vied for the chance to hunt Wyoming grizzly bears for the first time in 44 years. Many entrants in the permit lottery said if they won, they would sit out the hunt.

www.npr.org

What a circus, I also think of WY wolf rules outside of the GYE. I read several WY war on wolves headlines at the time.

If bears and wolves are Benjamin bovines, man someone better call the pit boss cause that slot machine was paying out after WY promulgated their rules. They may have been sound from a management perspective but someone forgot to call the PR department for an opinion.

IMHO your last paragraph nails it.

 

[Big Fin]

I get what you're saying and agree with a lot of it, but I'm curious about how you view the situation in terms of recovery outside the N. Rocky Mtn DPS, which is what this decision is about. Reading the background in the ruling it's obvious that there has been trouble identifying DPSs and having well defined objectives for recovery in each DPS.

I fully believe that wolves are recovered in NRM DPS, and probably in northern great lakes but no longer a DPS, less familiar with that, but I'm not so sure the other areas have really met the intent of recovery or at least haven't followed the proper process through the previous delisting.

Seems there needs to be a settlement on a better DPS analysis and clearly defined objectives for each DPS. There are a lot of holes in current recovery plan that for me need to be resolved before I feel like we can really say we can delist nationally.

My view. Well, here goes.

The DPS argument is complete hypocrisy. I don't buy into it, and here is why.

They are litigating that you cannot slice and dice into Distinct Population Segments and manage those DPS according to population and habitat criteria specific to what is appropriate for that geographic area and landscape conditions for that DPS. Yet, this is what they wanted for grizzly bears. So, we ended up with 5 DPS for grizzly.

Then, they say that we cannot count the fact that thousands of wolves exist in Canada and Alaska, so we must recognize the Lower 48 wolves as a DPS. But within the Lower 48 wolves we cannot have other DPS's.

They also said that they will recognize the Northern Rockies population as a DPS in order to get a "non-essential and experimental" population reintroduced in 1995. They agreed to look at it as a DPS, as they knew that was the only path for reintroduction.

Now, the entire DPS theory they supported for decades is no longer applicable. That is complete hypocrisy in my mind. Obviously not in the mind of the judge deciding this case, and for today, that is all that matters.

The DPS argument takes us to the impracticality of never land. If we cannot use DPS for management plans, population and habitat criteria, then until all historical habitat is occupied the areas that are doing a great job with wolves are still "listed" and in effect penalized. In essence, until the Cleveland Ohio or the Omaha wolf packs are established (obviously I'm using extreme examples), the super abundant Koochiching County MN wolves stay protected.

That "No DPS" idea makes no sense. There is never going to be wolves in all historical habitats. Thus the need for DPS. That "historic habitat" language puts us in a permanent state of "listed." The term used to establish the criteria is not a scientific term, rather a legal interpretation of what that means. And whatever the judge determines, that judicial finding has zero impact on the health of the existing wolf populations.

Those are my views. As I said earlier, the litigators are demanding perfection and return to habitats that will never again hold a wolf. That's an unattainable demand and they know it. So long as there are judges making legal interpretation to support their definition of occupying "historical habitat" and rejecting the previously accepted and promoted concept of DPS, it really doesn't matter what I think.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Maybe this will screw "Denvers" plan and this reintroduction bs will fail. Wishful thinking I'm sure.

Considering the court ruling saying that you can't delist them in Colorado because there is not enough of them I'd expect the opposite.

Isn't the fact that multiple states offer wolf hunting opportunities enough? Not sure what I'm missing here.

There are biologists who argue that all wolves in lower 48 should be protected until the entire historic range is reoccupied. The current division of populations is northern rocky mtns (recovered and delisted), Minnesota, and rest of US which were both just relisted. I don't agree with lumping 44 states as a population and needing occupancy across that range, but that is the unfortunate reality of the current recovery plan. Has nothing to do with how many states offer hunting.

 

[kwyeewyk]

My view. Well, here goes.

The DPS argument is complete hypocrisy. I don't buy into it, and here is why.

They are litigating that you cannot slice and dice into Distinct Population Segments and manage those DPS according to population and habitat criteria specific to what is appropriate for that geographic area and landscape conditions for that DPS. Yet, this is what they wanted for grizzly bears. So, we ended up with 5 DPS for grizzly.

Then, they say that we cannot count the fact that thousands of wolves exist in Canada and Alaska, so we must recognize the Lower 48 wolves as a DPS. But within the Lower 48 wolves we cannot have other DPS's.

They also said that they will recognize the Northern Rockies population as a DPS in order to get a "non-essential and experimental" population reintroduced in 1995. They agreed to look at it as a DPS, as they knew that was the only path for reintroduction.

Now, the entire DPS theory they supported for decades is no longer applicable. That is complete hypocrisy in my mind. Obviously not in the mind of the judge deciding this case, and for today, that is all that matters.

The DPS argument takes us to the impracticality of never land. If we cannot use DPS for management plans, population and habitat criteria, then until all historical habitat is occupied the areas that are doing a great job with wolves are still "listed" and in effect penalized. In essence, until the Cleveland Ohio or the Omaha wolf packs are established (obviously I'm using extreme examples), the super abundant Koochiching County MN wolves stay protected.

That "No DPS" idea makes no sense. There is never going to be wolves in all historical habitats. Thus the need for DPS. That "historic habitat" language puts us in a permanent state of "listed." The term used to establish the criteria is not a scientific term, rather a legal interpretation of what that means. And whatever the judge determines, that judicial finding has zero impact on the health of the existing wolf populations.

Those are my views. As I said earlier, the litigators are demanding perfection and return to habitats that will never again hold a wolf. That's an unattainable demand and they know it. So long as there are judges making legal interpretation to support their definition of occupying "historical habitat" and rejecting the previously accepted and promoted concept of DPS, it really doesn't matter what I think.

Yes I agree the DPS designation process is not scientific, I've been on the fringe of DPS discussions for sage-grouse and it's definitely influenced by politics. But I think that is the best hope for moving forward with recovery discussions outside of N. Rockies, maybe a settlement could never be reached but seems like the only way to take the endless interpretation by judges away from the process.

 

[Jason73]

Considering the court ruling saying that you can't delist them in Colorado because there is not enough of them I'd expect the opposite.

There are biologists who argue that all wolves in lower 48 should be protected until the entire historic range is reoccupied. The current division of populations is northern rocky mtns (recovered and delisted), Minnesota, and rest of US which were both just relisted. I don't agree with lumping 44 states as a population and needing occupancy across that range, but that is the unfortunate reality of the current recovery plan. Has nothing to do with how many states offer hunting.

I understand that, I was reaching a little. Simply stating that they are thriving in areas and to say they aren't naturally spreading across the landscape is bs. I watched a program about a wolf that was released on some island in Michigan I believe, and it was tracked a long ways away. After walking across the ice and covering hundreds of miles I believe they recovered the collar after it died. I could be off the story a bit. Wish I could remember the program.

 

[MTGomer]

Thriving, in a genetically diverse, contiguous population from the lower 48 to the Arctic Circle.
Also known as in danger of going extinct.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

People need to read this exchange twice.

Take your emotion out of the discussion, leave your bias at the door, and recognize that this is perhaps one of the most leve-headed statements about the real & perceived costs of wildlife management. Rather than reading to argue, read this and see a road map of past mistakes, and a way to not repeat them.

I'm jaded on this issue. 20 years of my life were spent in it. I'm done. But Randy has perfectly captured what people see, think & feel, and he did it with empathy & understanding.

If we want species to have this critical safety net, then we heed these words.

 

[dgc1963]

Well no; geewhiz gave you the right answer a few posts back. That said the idfg commission has given the group grant money that they have authority over

Ok didnt know the details just read story on it and was told by someone working with FnG and they said the budget was increased this yr

 

[Rzrbk]

Tribes are the ones really getting screwed by ESA. They have to comply due to their federal nexus and so must pay the ESA consultation/permitting cost. It's a drain of tribal resources whether tribal or through Indian Affairs.

Imagine you have a beautiful and well-maintained home that you sell to a new owner. Then, a few years later the new owner comes to you and announces that they have destroyed your former beautiful home. Here's the kicker....., you have to pay for the damages the new owner did to your former home. Talk about a slap in the face. Tribes relinquished their ownership/management of the land through Treaties. By all accounts, tribes were excellent land managers and wildlife populations flourished. So, they lose their land and then have to pay for our mismanagement. Social and environmental justice look no further.

 

[Unlucky]

Hm, Montana native wolve was the Northern Rocky mountain wolf. GREY WOLVES were reintroduced into montana in 1995. Just saying based off actual science and history. What that disaster has been.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Hm, Montana native wolve was the Northern Rocky mountain wolf. GREY WOLVES were reintroduced into montana in 1995. Just saying based off actual science and history. What that disaster has been.

They're all GRAY wolves, actual science.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Hm, Montana native wolve was the Northern Rocky mountain wolf. GREY WOLVES were reintroduced into montana in 1995. Just saying based off actual science and history. What that disaster has been.

Fake news ... old, cold crap.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Thriving, in a genetically diverse, contiguous population from the lower 48 to the Arctic Circle.
Also known as in danger of going extinct.

Been trying to figure out how to respond to Randy but also better articulate my thoughts on the ESA.

To me your comment kinda sums it up…

I’m for the ESA when it comes to Condors or Black footed ferrets, would I support USFWS doing a captive ferret breeding and release program, definitely.

I voted no on CO wolves.

Wolves are just completely different. They should have the same rules and treatment as restoring elk back east. To me elk in PA or KY is the parallel to wolves in CO.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Wolves are just completely different. They should have the same rules and treatment as restoring elk back east. To me elk in PA or KY is the parallel to wolves in CO.

This is exactly right, elk have never been listed with a requirement that they occupy their entire historic range, and as Randy pointed out other species like grizzly bear have discreet recovery areas based on where bears could feasibly exist in the modern situation. A proper recovery plan addresses that, there needs to be a redo of the recovery plan for all wolves outside northern rockies that addresses habitat suitability and prey-base and identifies realistic recovery areas with clear objectives. It needs to be done in settlement fashion with the serial litigants so when someone tries to change the rules later on the judge has a legally binding settlement to refer to.

 

[Unlucky]

Exactly, wonder why man got rid of them in the first place. Repeating history.

 

[Unlucky]

Facts wolves have no significance to modern wildlife. Man controls tags. Herds. Wolves kill a cow, sheep ect rancher dont care. Tax payers paying for it. Wolves feeding on elk herds, moose, deer. Effects man.

Wolves have there place just not in most places. Very effident wolves have reduced moose tags and destroyed the northern rocky mountain elk herd.

Grizzlies what they should be concerned about. A few tags should be drawn out soon.

 

[Dirthog67]

Tribes are the ones really getting screwed by ESA. They have to comply due to their federal nexus and so must pay the ESA consultation/permitting cost. It's a drain of tribal resources whether tribal or through Indian Affairs.

Imagine you have a beautiful and well-maintained home that you sell to a new owner. Then, a few years later the new owner comes to you and announces that they have destroyed your former beautiful home. Here's the kicker....., you have to pay for the damages the new owner did to your former home. Talk about a slap in the face. Tribes relinquished their ownership/management of the land through Treaties. By all accounts, tribes were excellent land managers and wildlife populations flourished. So, they lose their land and then have to pay for our mismanagement. Social and environmental justice look no further.

Ask the extinct pleistocene megafauna how they feel about tribal land management.