This just in...Feds/wolves/courts

[Deleted member 28227]

@wllm1313 you may be able to answer this too. You'll have to excuse me, as there aren't any wolves in ND aside from the occasional stray from MN, so I'm not as familiar with all aspects of this. But my impression is that the usfw set up a plan for esa recovery for both wolves and griz. In those plansthey specified recovery goals in terms of ecosystem level population recovery. Those goals were very specific in what numbers the populations needed to reach. Once those populations reached those specified numbers, they were to be removed from esa protection and handed back to the state to continue management. It's also my impression that both wolves and griz have reached said population recovery requirements. There's a publication out there from the usfw where they acknowledge recovery goals have been met in both cases, as dictated by their recovery plans.

So, what is the justification or reasoning for wanting to keep them under esa protection? I feel as if I'm missing something in these conversations.

Wild oversimplification, but if you will allow; some groups are just anti hunting, the USFWS + states didn’t follow the law to the letter and left themselves open to litigation.

Quick example for grizzly, but certainly not the only reason for continued litigation. The law says you have to put together and get a recovery plan approved.

The grizzly recovery plan said they would evaluate all of the possible recovery areas. One of the areas was CO in the SJ and their had been a grizzly killed (1979) there near-ish the time the Recovery Plan was drafted (1982). Fast forward no bear had been seen in CO for 40 years so USFWS said screw it and didn’t do the CO study. If you read the plan the CO mentioned numerous times, and on every page that mentions goals.








Grizzly Plan

So boom, you didn't follow the Recovery Plan, you lose in court. I think most of the "losses" can be bucketed under the Administrative Procedures Act, which more or less means the gov has to follow the rules, and you can sue them and get a restraining order or injunction based on the an APA claim.

To that end I agree that the ESA process and litigation is exceedingly annoying and illogical at times given the on the ground reality, but at the same time some of the thing are pretty big mistakes, I mean that CO grizz was painfully obvious.

So "what is the justification or reasoning for wanting to keep them under ESA protection?"

It's not really reasoning for wanting to keep them, it's "did you follow the procedure correctly to delist." Which generally speaking states and USFWS, often because despite the best advice, work, pleading? of career wildlife professionals politicians/political appointees just do whatever they want and screw it up.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@brocksw as far as the current ruling I'm not a lawyer, but I read through it, this is my hot take, other folks can correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is the crux of the decision.


The argument is that the service tried to chop up wolf populations into pieces and combine pieces in a manner that was best for getting delisting but not best for wolf recovery.

 

[brocksw]

Wild oversimplification, but if you will allow; some groups are just anti hunting, the USFWS + states didn’t follow the law to the letter and left themselves open to litigation.

Quick example for grizzly, but certainly not the only reason for continued litigation. The law says you have to put together and get a recovery plan approved.

The grizzly recovery plan said they would evaluate all of the possible recovery areas. One of the areas was CO in the SJ and their had been a grizzly killed (1979) there near-ish the time the Recovery Plan was drafted (1982). Fast forward no bear had been seen in CO for 40 years so USFWS said screw it and didn’t do the CO study. If you read the plan the CO mentioned numerous times, and on every page that mentions goals.


View attachment 211974

View attachment 211975

View attachment 211976

Grizzly Plan

So boom, you didn't follow the Recovery Plan, you lose in court. I think most of the "losses" can be bucketed under the Administrative Procedures Act, which more or less means the gov has to follow the rules, and you can sue them and get a restraining order or injunction based on the an APA claim.

To that end I agree that the ESA process and litigation is exceedingly annoying and illogical at times given the on the ground reality, but at the same time some of the thing are pretty big mistakes, I mean that CO grizz was painfully obvious.

So "what is the justification or reasoning for wanting to keep them under ESA protection?"

It's not really reasoning for wanting to keep them, it's "did you follow the procedure correctly to delist." Which generally speaking states and USFWS, often because despite the best advice, work, pleading? of career wildlife professionals politicians/political appointees just do whatever they want and screw it up.

Thank you

 

[NR_Hunter]

3 S’s boys.

But u already broke one of them.

 

[Stocker]

But u already broke one of them.

You gotta do them in order.

 

[NR_Hunter]

You gotta do them in order.

But why stand around a federally protected animal u just shot long enough to dig a hole? What if don’t have a shovel with you? What if u shoot it in the winter?

 

[mtmiller]

3 S’s boys.

But u already broke one of them.

You dernn't see thems illegal super wolves running alls over Nebraska now does ya. Gett'r done.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I love what the ESA is suppose to represent. But at this point I’d just about vote to abolish it given the chance and let local DFGs manage everything. Obviously it’s a lot more complicated than that, but there are ways. What we have now, like said above, is a pathetic political football game with our wildlife. At least for the larger fauna in our country.

But by all means, if you guys have some good idea that will work to make all the HSUS and Center for Biological diversity folks disappear along with their insanely deep pockets and bought and paid for politicians I’d be all ears. I know this can happen on both sides.

The bald eagle was listed and delisted successfully.

I don’t remember folks talking about 3s’ing bald eagles, or designated population segments, or frankly management through hunting.

An eagle isn’t a wolf, but at the same time I can see the argument from the other side of the aisle saying that wolves face a lot more antagonism than other species.

Then again why were woodland caribou not listed, and why did HSUS never make a peep about them, even while they were going functionally extinct in the lower 48… why does the CBD only care about predators and not about prey species? Honestly, would love to have conversation with CPW commissioner Tutchton about that point.

​

 

[Jason73]

Thankfully in Colorado we let the "real" scientists decide about wolf reintroduction. Makes a lot of us elk and deer enthusiasts at ease with the decision.

 

[TheTone]

The FnG is paying up to $2500 in some areas and $1000 to 500 in others depending one the areas population and I was told they increases the budget for this yr

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

 

[nrpate05]

Wild oversimplification, but if you will allow; some groups are just anti hunting, the USFWS + states didn’t follow the law to the letter and left themselves open to litigation.

Quick example for grizzly, but certainly not the only reason for continued litigation. The law says you have to put together and get a recovery plan approved.

The grizzly recovery plan said they would evaluate all of the possible recovery areas. One of the areas was CO in the SJ and their had been a grizzly killed (1979) there near-ish the time the Recovery Plan was drafted (1982). Fast forward no bear had been seen in CO for 40 years so USFWS said screw it and didn’t do the CO study. If you read the plan the CO mentioned numerous times, and on every page that mentions goals.


View attachment 211974

View attachment 211975

View attachment 211976

Grizzly Plan

So boom, you didn't follow the Recovery Plan, you lose in court. I think most of the "losses" can be bucketed under the Administrative Procedures Act, which more or less means the gov has to follow the rules, and you can sue them and get a restraining order or injunction based on the an APA claim.

To that end I agree that the ESA process and litigation is exceedingly annoying and illogical at times given the on the ground reality, but at the same time some of the thing are pretty big mistakes, I mean that CO grizz was painfully obvious.

So "what is the justification or reasoning for wanting to keep them under ESA protection?"

It's not really reasoning for wanting to keep them, it's "did you follow the procedure correctly to delist." Which generally speaking states and USFWS, often because despite the best advice, work, pleading? of career wildlife professionals politicians/political appointees just do whatever they want and screw it up.

This is a good take. I haven't followed the court rulings too closely but I think a lot of the back and forth with listing and delisting has been procedural rather than scientific. The APA sets out the rules to follow for the respective agency and if those rules are not followed to the letter it doesn't matter if the science is followed or not. The agency can get sued in court and will likely lose, which is what we have seen.

As far as the Grizzly Bear, proponents of keeping them listed claim that the USFWS has not done their due diligence and provided the best science (which is required under the ESA) because they have failed to account for the decrease in native cutthroat populations and whitebark pine crop, which are both major food sources for the bears. I'm not sure this claim really holds water, but if they find a judge that is sympathetic (which they have) then they have a shot.

The saga of the wolves and grizzly bears in the lower 48, in my mind, simply undermines the ESA. It is one of the strongest pieces of conservation legislation and has done a lot of good in the past and can continue to restore species and prevent their demise in the future but if the public doesn't trust it then there may always be this back and forth debate over the "science".

I also think the wolf and grizzly bear debate has become almost solely based on hunting vs. non hunting as opposed to recovered vs. not recovered. We have kind of lost sight as to what the ESA is really about and that is the latter of those two. I think both species are very much recovered but I'm not familiar enough with the law to know the nuances that are required for delisting. I hope they are delisted and states hold off on hunting seasons for a few years (at least in the case of the grizzly).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The saga of the wolves and grizzly bears in the lower 48, in my mind, simply undermines the ESA. It is one of the strongest pieces of conservation legislation and has done a lot of good in the past and can continue to restore species and prevent their demise in the future but if the public doesn't trust it then there may always be this back and forth debate over the "science".

I also think the wolf and grizzly bear debate has become almost solely based on hunting vs. non hunting as opposed to recovered vs. not recovered.

I think hunting v. non hunting is exactly the issue, and for both sides. I think that because we want to hunt these species the burden of proof for recovery is and should be higher.

Here are a handful of species that were delisted, you still can't hunt any of these.

Bald Eagle
Steller Sea Lion
Brown Pelican
Peregrine Falcon
Louisiana Black Bear (population segment)
Channel Island foxes

So yes, I agree with all the comments about serial litigators, but also let be honest with ourselves we are trying, and we I mean me as well, I applied, to have a season on wolves and grizzlies from day 1.

To that end I think it's reasonable, and to be expected to have extra scrutiny.

We aren't talking about habitat loss, or environmental containments leading to wolves and grizzly being listed we are talking about hunting and trapping, and we want to immediately take up those activities when they get delisted.

You want wolves to come of the list don't have your state management strategy on day 1 to be no holds barred hunting for the majority of the state.


-Feel free to proceed with flogging for being a green decoy-

 

[Jason73]

We should also relocate a few million elk across the plains. After all they used to inhabit the entire nation. I can't imagine that would draw the ire of those in agriculture. Come to think of it it sounds familiar to the ranchers I know in Southwest Colorado facing the wolf reintroduction.

 

[kwyeewyk]

The relisting was completely predictable and predicted, and I'm surprised it took this long to be overturned. It was obvious at the time the previous administration had made a political decision to delist them regardless of whether the recovery objectives have been met. We shouldn't blame ESA, once again it's partisan politics. If both sides would just commit to and accept the recovery objectives ESA would be a lot more functional.

But when you constantly have the right saying they want to kill all the wolves and showing that they're not bluffing, and the left never accepting when recovery actually happens with certain species while ignoring others, the intent of the act is lost. It's like calling your car a POS because you let your two grade schoolers work on it and they f'd it all up.

In the end, IMO, that boils down to the judges. They need to remain more objective to both spectrums of the arguments and not allow the intent of recovery be lost in rabbit hole arguments. If that means ordering FWS to revise recovery plans to fill holes so be it, but once the plan is complete and objectives met, the delisting needs to be upheld. And a good recovery plan should clearly lay out objectives and how to measure them, and address hunting post recovery.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The relisting was completely predictable and predicted, and I'm surprised it took this long to be overturned. It was obvious at the time the previous administration had made a political decision to delist them regardless of whether the recovery objectives have been met. We shouldn't blame ESA, once again it's partisan politics. If both sides would just commit to and accept the recovery objectives ESA would be a lot more functional.

But when you constantly have the right saying they want to kill all the wolves and showing that they're not bluffing, and the left never accepting when recovery actually happens with certain species while ignoring others, the intent of the act is lost. It's like calling your car a POS because you let your two grade schoolers work on it and they f'd it all up.

In the end, IMO, that boils down to the judges. They need to remain more objective to both spectrums of the arguments and not allow the intent of recovery be lost in rabbit hole arguments. If that means ordering FWS to revise recovery plans to fill holes so be it, but once the plan is complete and objectives met, the delisting needs to be upheld. And a good recovery plan should clearly lay out objectives and how to measure them, and address hunting post recovery.

Exactly. Foil to grizzlies, Louisiana black bear. Listed-> Delisted, little fanfare.

 

[SwaggyD]

Shit, shower, shave??

It is 4 S's now.
Shit, shower, shave, and social media!

 

[Stocker]

You dernn't see thems illegal super wolves running alls over Nebraska now does ya. Gett'r done.

Testing confirms gray wolf killed north of Fremont

Nebraska wildlife officials say genetic testing has shown that an animal killed in January by coyote hunters north of Fremont was a gray wolf.

www.wowt.com

Makes 5-6 in the past year. Another one got trapped in Cozad this past week. So there’s that………

 

[brocksw]

Testing confirms gray wolf killed north of Fremont

Nebraska wildlife officials say genetic testing has shown that an animal killed in January by coyote hunters north of Fremont was a gray wolf.

www.wowt.com

Makes 5-6 in the past year. Another one got trapped in Cozad this past week. So there’s that………

You acknowledge that the ESA has been quite a success overall, right? I mean, regardless of the debate over what defines "recovered" or "political football", the program has worked pretty well in terms of increasing or stabilizing populations (which is the entire point).

 

[Stocker]

You acknowledge that the ESA has been quite a success overall, right? I mean, regardless of the debate over what defines "recovered" or "political football", the program has worked pretty well in terms of increasing populations (which is the entire point).

Like I said, I have no problem with increased wolf populations as long as game species are allowed to increase also. Deer, elk, moose are already squeezed by encroachment and human behavior. So throwing wolves in the mix isn’t a good idea for them. I don’t j ow the numbers but let’s say wolf populations have increased 10x in 10 years, how have the game species fared? So we’ll have this cycle where elk deer and moose populations decrease to a point there’s public outcry. We’ll go in and shoot the wolves, game animal populations will increase. Then we’ll be worried about getting more wolves again.


I just don’t understand where common sense as far as balancing things out has been lost it’s just wolf swings of the pendulum and it never seems to wanna settle towards the middle.


I should say I think the fish and game biologists at state levels try hard to balance things. It’s when politics, special interest groups, and bureaucrats get involved that it all goes to hell. All or nothing, my way or the highway. That’s modern society.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Federal Court Restores Gray Wolf’s Endangered Species Act Protection

Center for Biological Diversity: OAKLAND, Calif.— A federal judge today restored protection to gray wolves, reversing a Trump-era rule that removed Endangered Species Act protection from the animals across most of the country. Today’s ruling prohibits wolf hunting and trapping in states outside...

biologicaldiversity.org

I was just about to post this same article. Gotta love the tree hugging feds. I’m glad that wolves and grizzly are not protected where I hunt. Kill on site per GWs.