# As Predicted, Lawsuits against Feds on Griz Delisting



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I get so tired of these serial litigators. The only reason they file lawsuits is because if they win, they get paid, and donations skyrocket! Ugghh!-O,-

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=44843576&ni...enge-us-plan-to-lift-grizzly-bear-protections


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I called it the second they were delisted. 

Imagine how much money this'll cost taxpayers in litigation.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

*Not a member of any of these organizations or even any NGO focused on wildlife at the moment

1) This isn't a traditional lawsuit. The ESA requires the USFWS to allow a 60-day period to file when a species is proposed to be de-listed. Clearly, these filings can and do lead to lawsuits. But they are also times for organizations to provide counter arguments to convince the federal agency that the delisting criteria have not thoroughly been met. The USFWS failed to satisfy those requirements once with the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly (GYE), the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) being considered for delisting at the moment. The courts ruled in the favor of the plantifs in regard to inadequate conservation strategy (later overturned) and inadequate accounting for the decline in whitebark pine (upheld). I assume those will both be points used in this process.

2) The Grizzly listing will always be a contentious species to manage. Its one of the many that captivate the public. And even the scientific community has differing opinions , including recovery plan methodology. For instance, the criteria for delisting has only been met because the original status was amended decades later in the form of the DPS criteria. That was a controversial concept from the get go. The Grizzly has the disadvantage of being one of the first species listed as endangered when the ESA was still young and untested. That has led to some unfortunate chaos. The point being, folks may disagree with the lawsuits but its a choice that reflects the concerns of more than just "eco wackos". 

3) I don't always agree with them and recognize they earned a reputation with the Mexican Spotted Owl case, but the Center for Biological Diversity was founded by scientist and has an unusually high success rate with lawsuits. They don't tend to jump into the fray unless they think they have a solid case. I would wager they have a fairly compelling case to make about the delisting that is based on scientific research and backed by researchers and wildlife managers. It may not be enough to win but I would be shocked if its just some extremist strategy to recruit new members (they have plenty already). 

4) I also don't see how the Northern Cheyenne Tribe has any financial or membership stake in this filing. What I can glean from their statements and activity is an attempt to have official recognition similar to what state wildlife agencies formally have with the USFWS and the conservation plans. That argument holds alot of water historically but I haven't read the 515 page delisting document so I am not sure what scientific argument they have made yet.

5) I would love to see the grizzly de-listed if the science is sound and the law is followed properly. The next month and maybe a lawsuit will hash that out. I tend to trust the USFWS and think their working groups make strong strides in the right direction. But they also make mistakes and those should be able to worked out legally. Like I said in a different thread, its a hallmark characteristic of a democracy that its government can be held legally accountable. There are frivolous lawsuits but its hard to make that judgment so early without an analysis of their evidence and case. 

This just reminds me how large of wildlife biology backlog I have in my reading list. 515 pages though, ugh, that is alot even for someone as wordy as me.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks for the reply backcountry, much appreciate your input. I'm not a member of any of those organizations either. I do find it interesting that you specifically picked out Center for Biological Diversity as the group I was calling "wacko". In addition to CBD and the Cheyenne Tribe, the article indicated "The Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society, and WildEarth Guardians are among those challenging the plan to lift restrictions this summer." USUS, WEG, and "those other groups" who have joined in the fray might have been who I was referencing...:shock: In any case, you make some fine points, some of which I agree with and some I don't, and some that I just expounded on. Sorry took so long to respond. Sometimes life just gets in the way...



backcountry said:


> *Not a member of any of these organizations or even any NGO focused on wildlife at the moment
> 
> 1) This isn't a traditional lawsuit. Agreed The ESA requires the USFWS to allow a 60-day period to file when a species is proposed to be de-listed. Agreed Clearly, these filings can and do lead to lawsuits. . Agreed, however this notice of intent to file such a lawsuit is simply the M.O. of the majority of these serial litigator groups, in nearly EVERY case of a ESA listed species that will be de-listed or proposed to be de-listed. Why miss another opportunity to 'cash in', so to speak. To be explained below. But they are also times for organizations to provide counter arguments to convince the federal agency that the delisting criteria have not thoroughly been met. Again, agreed. However, rarely do these typical 'serial litigator groups' even attempt to provide non litigious counter arguments, or even attempt to actually work with the Service to solve them, they simply file another LAWSUIT. The USFWS failed to satisfy those requirements once with the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly (GYE), the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) being considered for delisting at the moment. The courts ruled in the favor of the plantifs in regard to inadequate conservation strategy (later overturned) and inadequate accounting for the decline in whitebark pine (upheld). Agreed, with a bit more information: In 2007 the GYE DPS was removed from the threatened species list. At that time, SEVERAL groups file lawsuitS. In 2009, a federal district judge (US District Judge Donald W. Malloy-name ring a bell in the Wolf delisting fiasco?) overruled the delisting and placed the grizzly back on the threatened list for the reasons you cited. In 2011, an appeals court rules the grizzly bear should remain on the threatened species list. They determined that the Conservation Strategy did in fact provide adequate regulatory mechanisms. But the court upheld the lower court ruling that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service did not sufficiently address the potential impacts from reduction of whitebark pine and other foods. However, in 2013 the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, and Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team recommend that grizzly bears be removed from the threatened species list because alternative foods are available and the reduction of whitebark pine is not having a significant impact on bears at this time. Funny how that works. I assume those will both be points used in this process. . I assume you would be correct, in addition to other very complicated federal laws that may conflict with other very complicated laws either substantially or 'technically only'.
> 
> ...


I've been known to be a bit words myself, now and then. Hence my attempt to be succinct with the "wacko" post.:mrgreen:

I know relatively little compared to what I should when it comes down to the world of politics, environmentalism, conservation, and all those critical areas that todays hunter should. As a group we are pathetically weak in regards to the knowledge we need to help our heritage survive and flourish. Today we must all be well versed in many different venues and whether for good or worse, our heritage will prosper or disappear by how well we as a group meet those requirements. I'm hoping for the former, for our kindreds' sake.

BTW, here is a great talk about the ESA, EAJA, and other relevant issues we should all know better. Enjoy...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Stillhunterman,

I was just talking to a friend of mine who is a sociology professor conducting a "network analysis" on biologist and biological studies. I think what we see with an individual like Mr Mattson is emblematic of a concern I have about scientist becoming activist. It would be easy enough if his transition and actions just affected him but sadly it provides ammunition against ecologist and wildlife biologist as a whole. I find it similar to the way the public has rightfully become skeptical about the common transition from government representative to lobbyist. So I cringe whenever a scientist like him starts taking such strong stands in political activism.

His obfuscation about personal bias is just the first red flag. I also think he has done a disservice to science by so generically critiquing the research design of field scientists and the importance of carrying capacity. The average citizen on the show he was on doesn't have the scientific literacy to understand the nuances that do exist. Instead, comments like his (which he is using as political ammunition, not constructively trying to better the science) fuel the partisan divide we see in conservation/environmentalism. But that is relatively minor compared to taking the ESA delisting process hostage because of his personal views about state management. Listing any animal under the ESA is inherently political (I mean its a law with compromises needed to get through the legislative process). But the chance to influence recovery comes in the form of the Recovery Plan, not afterwards. He clearly cares less about adhering to the law and more about using the Grizzly de-listing as a tool to reform state wildlife management. I am definitely concerned when groups aren't focused on the criteria created under a Recovery Plan but want to force new parameters into a very specific legal framework. 

I will say I think the conversation is stalled with terms like "eco-wackos" while serial litigators approaches a better descriptor that doesn't shut down a dialog. Eco-wacko just reeks of the dog whistle politics of our hyper partisan world. I have no problem discussing the very real problems of serial litigation and a general unwillingness to accept an outcome that doesn't fit a particular worldview (even if there are elements of the law on your side). Its this particular criticism that has left me politically homeless (even with NGOs) as I think the vast majority of groups have created an all or nothing strategy in political battles. I will also admit in that particular dilemma that I have yet to hear of a cure that isn't worse than the disease. I think we can find one but I can't see it happening in the current political environment.

I appreciate your post and willingness to chat. I will listen to the podcast soon. Even if I don't agree with statements I find it important to listen to different perspectives, assuming their is a focus on constructive dialog. I need to start reading more about current issues regarding the ESA. I was just beginning to work with a biologist to create literature for the state of Utah about the ESA when I got sick and never found my way back to that area of expertise. Its amazing how quick a field will move on when you aren't paying attention.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

All the Cheyenne need is a cultural or ancestral significance tie to have a stake in it. In these instances, science will not matter and will have representation in DC along with the strong lobbying voices.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> All the Cheyenne need is a cultural or ancestral significance tie to have a stake in it. In these instances, science will not matter and will have representation in DC along with the strong lobbying voices.


Well since my wife, myself, my children and my grand children are all descendants of Native Americans can we have a say in this matter, or is it just certain Native Americans who disagree with it that can have a say in the matter?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

LostLouisianian said:


> Well since my wife, myself, my children and my grand children are all descendants of Native Americans can we have a say in this matter, or is it just certain Native Americans who disagree with it that can have a say in the matter?


Many of us do have some NA blood in us, mine is Cherokee.

So...?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

LL,

As HDE highlighted, the tribes that get to influence a conversation/law/process are the ones who have a cultural stake in the matter. Once that stakeholder status is proven, the individuals within the tribe get to influence the organization that represents them in the working group for the species. That is a pretty standard for of governance.

Now, to High Desert Elk, I agree with what you describe but I would state that is clearly the generic or ideal (edit: ideal in government representation, not the implication of sidelining science so easily) mechanism. The ideal has never been remotely true for most tribes throughout American history. Our federal, state and local govenrments have a well-document tendency to exclude tribes and tribal representation at most negotiations. I think the statements by the North Cheyenne tribe show that trend continues to this day and with this particular situation.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry - maybe in the past, but not today. I cannot leave my hometown and NOT drive through a reservation. Navajo, Southern Ute, Mountain Ute, Apache. I can promise you the gov't has the best interest of cultural matters of tribes in mind...

The gov't listens. Trust me.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

HDE,

I am confused by your statement. Are you saying the presence of reservations alone exposes the federal government's respect for tribes as vaid stakeholders in regards to the ESA? From the sounds of it you have direct experience in extraction and know of wildlife regulations so I think I may be missing a caveat of your post.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> *Not a member of any of these organizations or even any NGO focused on wildlife at the moment
> 
> 2) The Grizzly listing will always be a contentious species to manage. Its one of the many that captivate the public. And even the scientific community has differing opinions , including recovery plan methodology. For instance, the criteria for delisting has only been met because the original status was amended decades later in the form of the DPS criteria. That was a controversial concept from the get go. The Grizzly has the disadvantage of being one of the first species listed as endangered when the ESA was still young and untested. That has led to some unfortunate chaos. The point being, folks may disagree with the lawsuits but its a choice that reflects the concerns of more than just "eco wackos".
> 
> 4) I also don't see how the Northern Cheyenne Tribe has any financial or membership stake in this filing. What I can glean from their statements and activity is an attempt to have official recognition similar to what state wildlife agencies formally have with the USFWS and the conservation plans. That argument holds alot of water historically but I haven't read the 515 page delisting document so I am not sure what scientific argument they have made yet.


2) what better way to manage the grizzly population than to let only tribal members hunt them as part of a right of passage or some other ceremony?

4) they don't need a financial stake, just a heritage that involves it. They want a voice in how is should be "co-managed". Co-managed, now where have I heard that before...

My statement about the reservations is that when you live so close to so many, you see things and read things at a local level you will not see or read at a federal (document) level.

Any federal action today requires input from any and all interested or affected parties involved. If a particular party isn't on record, it's not because they didn't have their chance. As you also state the ESA was in it's infancy when enacted on the grizzly.


----------

