# Colorado River Cutthroat and the Endangered Species Act



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed a law suit to have the Colorado River Cutthroat to be listed as endangered. Not only would this remove Utah's ability to exercise control over its own lakes and rivers, it may prevent you from fishing in any water in which these fish are known to exist.

If you are tired of environmental groups suing on behalf of a vocal minority, please copy the below letter and email it to Noah Greenwald at the Center for Biological Diversity at [email protected] <[email protected]>.

This is really easy. Copy and paste the letter and the email address. Put your name at the bottom and push send.

Read the press release here: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2009.html

Don't put up with this. The suit is most likely a loser, but these people need to get the message that we aren't going to be bullied. Please send the following letter.

Mr. Greenwald,

I have recently become aware of the Center of Biological Diversity's suit to overturn a determination that the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout is not endangered. I am writing to ask the Center to reconsider its position.

In the press release on the center's website, it appears that the Center is arguing that the definition of the word "endangered" used by the Bush administration is unacceptable. The "flawed policy," as the press release puts it, disputes that "endangered" means "in danger of extinction in all or a significant of portion of its range."

Would you please explain why the Center believes the term "endangered," on its face, does not mean "in danger of extinction?" I recognize that the Center alleges that the Colorado River Cutthroat is only found in 87% of its historic range. I think we would all like to see an expansion of this fish's natural range, but that is a problem wholly separate from whether or not the fish is "endangered."

The Colorado River Cutthroat has been stocked throughout Utah and is found in a wide variety of lakes and rivers. The fish is prolific and has populations throughout the state that are naturally reproducing. Wyoming and Colorado have similar populations. There is no reason that this fish needs the further bureaucracy of the federal government and the Endangered Species Act. Each of the concerned states have policies and practices already in place to ensure not only that this fish is not "endangered," by any definition, but also that the genetic purity of the species will be protected.

I am afraid, sir, that the Endangered Species Act has become nothing but a cudgel for groups like yours to further political goals without regard to the actual prosperity of the species concerned. The Endangered Species Act provides these groups avenues to control or restrict the actions of those with whom you disagree politically.

I suspect you and I agree on more than on which we disagree. We both respect animals and appreciate the diversity that exists among different species of animals. I believe we are both interested in maintaining that diversity to extent possible. I believe, however, that that diversity is already protected in all but the most extreme cases by the individual states. The Colorado River Cutthroat is not one of those cases.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Center for Biological Diversity reconsider its position with respect to the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout and that the Center not turn this fish into a political football. The Center cannot legitimately be concerned that this fish will disappear in the foreseeable future. And, whether or not a fish is "endangered" should not depend on whether President Bush or President Obama is in the White House.

If the Center persists in its lawsuit, I will work to support the Fish and Wildlife Service's position in this case. My contribution may be small, but I will solicit my fellow outdoorsmen, anglers, and others to also support the Fish and Wildlife Service's position. If nothing else, I hope our contributions will diminish the Center's ability to bring further lawsuits that seek nothing more than government sanctioned restrictions on our enjoyment of nature.

Best regards,
[Name]


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks for the heads up! I just sent an email and attached some pics of some Co Cutts. That should get his attention.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is the response I received this morning.


> Gentleman,
> 
> I seem to have gotten the same letter from you both, suggesting a form. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the trout is gone from 87% of its historic range and is limited to small high elevation streams where they are at risk from habitat degradation, non-native trout and increasingly climate change. Don't take my word for it, see:
> 
> ...


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I wrote back;


> It seems that declaring them "endangered" would only make things worse. If we can not fish for them and release them unharmed there will be much funding lost to help re establish them. Am I wrong?


He wrote back;


> It's more likely they would be listed as threatened, in which case fishing can still occur as it does for a number of species listed under the Endangered Species Act


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

I got the same response as Nor-tah.

These guys are treating this fish as a political football. States are better at maintaining these fish than the feds.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

I sent an email- didn't copy the above one- just went at it from a different angle.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Sounds great. Thanks!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

These are the folks who tried the same thing with the Bonneville cutts a couple of years ago. Due to the good restoration work already done by the DWR, aided by private organizations like TU, the suit was found to be without merit. I suspect this one will be as well. The DWR response is listed here.
http://blogs.sltrib.com/fishing/index.php

I can't help but wonder if the reasoning for these suits isn't to try and mess up fishing in the state, possibly for purposes related to the animal rights movement. (in spite of disclaimers to the contrary by them)

As for how to deal with this crowd, it may make you feel better, but I don't think writing letters to them will do very much good. They tend to thrive on attention and that just gives them more. The best thing one could do is support and contribute to the DWR's CRC and Bonneville restoration efforts, join and contribute to Trout Unlimited and other REAL conservation organizations, and maybe gripe a bit less if some stream you fish that is packed with stunted brookies or browns gets poisoned and switched over to CRC or Bonneville management. Do these things and Noah Greenwald and his crew will not have a leg to stand on in court.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Bull trout are listed. You can still fish for them. I am not getting how this is necessarily bad for fishermen. Come up with a better argument than you don't want Washington DC managing fish in Utah. Actually come up with a real example of where fishermen got the shaft when a fish was listed.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

280Remington said:


> Bull trout are listed. You can still fish for them. I am not getting how this is necessarily bad for fishermen. Come up with a better argument than you don't want Washington DC managing fish in Utah. Actually come up with a real example of where fishermen got the shaft when a fish was listed.


Ummm, no, you can't. Bull Trout fishing is closed anywhere in their range where they are considered "endangered." Here's the rules for Montana. You can only intentionally fish for them in 4 places throughout the whole state. How's that for a real example?

http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=37069

If you want to be able to fish for Colorado River Cutts in 4 places in this state, don't send an email.

Furthermore, you are sorely mistaken if you think that having Washington D.C. run our lakes and rivers would be a good thing. It can't even manage its own lakes and rivers. Have you seen the Potomac? The male largemouths in the Potomac are turning into females. The Anacostia river supports nothing but catfish.

That's pretty ample precedent for making sure Washington stays in Washington.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Catherder said:


> These are the folks who tried the same thing with the Bonneville cutts a couple of years ago. Due to the good restoration work already done by the DWR, aided by private organizations like TU, the suit was found to be without merit. I suspect this one will be as well. The DWR response is listed here.
> http://blogs.sltrib.com/fishing/index.php
> 
> I can't help but wonder if the reasoning for these suits isn't to try and mess up fishing in the state, possibly for purposes related to the animal rights movement. (in spite of disclaimers to the contrary by them)
> ...


I suspect that it is part of the animal rights movement. If it isn't, it is probably a more ethereal "man is messing up nature" argument.

I disagree that sending emails to them won't do any good. It will cost them money that they can't spend on other things. Noah Greenwald lost a whole day's worth of time responding to just me and Nortah. Do that enough times, keep their servers busy, it's going to cut into their pocket book.

I do agree that restoration efforts should be done and supported. But, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think, from a legal perspective, this suit is a loser. That doesn't mean I don't want to teach them a lesson.


----------

