All right, Ben. Would you elaborate a bit on this? Your statement can be read from various perspectives and from my read - I disagree. I'd imagine you have a valuable piece of understanding you're trying to convey and well... mock it if you care to though I'm not following your experienced opinion.
"Rests squarely on the shoulders of the legislatures and fish and wildlife that make these changes..." Then you proceed to say, Not enviros, not tribes... You, of most all people here, comprehend the intent of lobbyists, Ben. Not enviros? Are you kidding???
I'm a very literal person so maybe that is where I am not following. Clarify?
You bet.
Maintaining a delisted status means that the regulatory mechanisms in place have to pass legal muster in terms of securing viable populations for the long haul. The previous plans that were in place were what led to the ability to split MT & ID off of Wyoming in the 2009 delisting order issued by the USFWS. By eliminating the issue of Wyoming's dual classification plan, the thought was that the states who did everything right in terms of drafting plans and focusing on the long-term viability of the wolf, the delisting was in order, and those states shouldn't be punished for Wyoming's recalcitrance.
Wyoming's plan was having significant issues passing legal muster, or USFWS internal review, but was accepted in order to try and move forward with delisting. Remember, Wyoming negotiated that they didn't have to have 15/150 as breeding pairs, min population because they claimed that the park wolves would account for roughly half of their wolves. That took flexibility away from ID & MT, but those states were on a different path in terms of their plans, so it went forward.
Now, with more pressure being placed on wolves in the park, by eliminating the quotas, and following the directives of the legislature and commission, MT's plan is a husk of it's former self, leaving a gaping hole in the adequate regulatory mechanism provisions of the ESA.
Yes, the enviro lobby will always sue. That's a constant, and there will always be extremists on both sides of this issue to keep the hate & money flowing. The key is to be able to survive the litigation without having to be relisted. When the legislatures and commissions abandon the already litigated plans that we know stand up to scrutiny in favor of a more aggressive approach with no basis in biology or eye towards sustainability, it becomes far more likely that litigation to relist is successful than if the original plans were in place.
Bounties, night hunting, snaring, etc all break the faith that MT & ID agreed to in their plans. It leaves them open for relisting, and now with those changes in place, they may take Wyoming with them because of some legal grey areas in the Wyoming plan, that really only work if MT & ID would have kept their plans in place.
So now it's a crap shoot as to whether or not they get relisted, purely because the legislatures and commissions have decided to play politics rather than biology. If those bodies hadn't given the ammo to the litigants, this litigation wouldn't be possible.
wyofile.com
