What's new
By:

Endangered Speices Act Reform

Let the pendulem swing !
 
So if I understand this, they want the federal government to accept fictional info provided by the locals, not facts?
 
This is a subject I know quite a bit about. My wife is a career biologist with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which is the agency in charge of administering and enforcing the ESA. I see nothing in the proposal that will change an awful lot, except for making species data more easily disseminated.

Everyone loves to demonize Federal employees, especially those who have any potential impact on land use. But many don't realize the tip-toe dance the USF&W Service makes in an effort to please a whole host of special interests. They just don't go out willy-nilly and list species on a whim. As a matter of fact, if you want to discuss wasting tax dollars, there are some enviro groups who actively and constantly sue the USF&W to list species they feel need to be added to threatened or endangered lists, but don't meet the criteria of the ESA. A considerable amount of money and resources are spent answering these lawsuits.

I'm just like the rest of you. I'm a miner, and am outraged over unnecessary issues and oversteps that affect our ability to recover gold. But let's keep our focus, and not lose sight of the true villains in this battle. The ESA is important, and while it is unfortunate that some lands have been removed from use because of listed species, I, for one, am glad that there is at least some process to protect what's left of our natural resources. The ESA is only the legal description, enforced by the USF&W. We should be angry at the farmers and ranchers in California for polluting rivers and streams, and the stocking of non-native trout, forcing the protection status for the red-legged frog...not the USF&W Service for responding to the crisis. In each case of land restrictions as a result of the ESA, it is land abuse creating the problem by short-sighted or greedy individuals -- not the Feds.

If left to State or local interests, you would see a lot more species going extinct. I don't think anyone wants that. Many endangered or threatened species are like the proverbial canary in a coal mine -- they are our early warning system for problems that can eventually affect the health of other animals, even human health.

The USF&W Service does a lot of good, that doesn't get much media coverage. They fund many, many environmental projects which restore lands and wetlands that have been destroyed by poor agriculture or industrial projects. There are many successes of species that were on the brink of extinction, which have been restored to healthy levels. It serves everyone to have such an agency on a centralized, Federal level. Local administrators of a similar agency would not be able to do what's required effectively, and would cave to local interests instead of the greater good.
 
Last edited:
Well. I kinda agree with some of what you say. But here on the West Coast a Bull trout is still a Dolly Varden and is just a dang Char. But that dang trash fish is being used to close stream after stream. Go figure. In way to many instances the inviron's go out of there way to sub species the heck out of a species and the fish and game go right along with it. I'm supporting any bill that stops a plantiff getting re-embursed even when losing a case. Federal employees seem not to stand up for the small scale miner and other users of the forest land that is slowly becoming off limits to everybody...at least around my neck of the woods. But I'll give credit to any employee if doing there job well.
 
Last edited:
The issue of listing subspecies is a tough one, ethically-speaking. I understand what you're saying. But who is going to make the decision to save one species, and not another? How does one measure all the potential losses of allowing something to go extinct, with an infinite number of variables and unknowns of the future? That is beyond the scope of the ESA.

I found this describing bull trout and Dolly Varden, which maybe makes the issue a little more clear why there are protections in place:

"Bull trout should not be confused with Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Although they look very alike based on external similarity of appearance, morphological (form and structure) and genetic analyses have confirmed the distinctiveness of the two species in their different, but overlapping, geographic distributions. Both species occur together in western Washington, for example, with little or no interbreeding. Lastly, bull trout and Dolly Varden each appear to be more closely related genetically to other species of Salvelinus than they are to each other. The bull trout is most closely related to the Japanese white-spotted char (S. leucomaenis) whereas the Dolly Varden is most closely related to the Arctic char (S. alpinus)."

This is just my opinion, and hasn't been proven, but I believe that one of the main issues surrounding the decline of Pacific coast salmonids is the aquaculture of salmon, especially in Puget Sound. This super-concentration of species together allows all sorts of diseases to take hold and spread, affecting other nearby fish too. Some bull trout spend a portion of their lives in coastal waters where they could be infected, but also there are migratory species which can carry disease upriver where it can reach freshwater species. Yet, no one wants to confront this large industry because of its lobbying power. Groups that try to bring this to light in court are shot down by highly-paid industry lawyers.

It's entirely possible that much of what miners have suffered since 2009, blaming us for the decline of salmon, is actually due to the ills of aquaculture. But how would something like this eventually be exposed? Most likely by studies funded by the USF&W!
 
" How does one measure all the potential losses of allowing something to go extinct"

Hopefully with facts and not maybe's, possibly's and many other uses of words that avoid the solid facts. The Bull Trout is an example of the " mis-use" of factual infomation conveyed to the general public. Everybody loves trout, so of course people want to jump on the bandwagon to protect them. Perhaps not so much to jump on that wagon if given the "FACTS" that in the case of the Bull Trout it's a dang carnivorous, eat anything that moves CHAR. I just read 55 pages of history relating to the listing of the bull trout ....wow!
 
Per bcfromfl: "The issue of listing subspecies is a tough one, ethically-speaking. I understand what you're saying. But who is going to make the decision to save one species, and not another? How does one measure all the potential losses of allowing something to go extinct, with an infinite number of variables and unknowns of the future? That is beyond the scope of the ESA."

I too know a little bit about the ESA and have done a lot regarding some species that have been brought forth to close public access and public lands.

A particular critter that I spent 12 years studying brought forth a lot of information about the Snowy Plover in Oregon. 1st was the fact that each agency, with "biologists" collect/form their own data and fail to share it. USFWS, BLM, USFS, State Fish and Game, [Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife....ODFW) collect and form their own opinions.

The USFS had the bird listed as "threatened" the BLM and USFWS had no listing....as the bird issue regarding classification was on lands managed by the USFS. The State, under pressure from eco groups wanting to close Oregon Beaches (at the time a designated highway by Oregon Dept of Motor Vehicles.... ODOT). wanted the beaches closed to vehicle use. The State had the Coastal Population (apriox 100 birds per annual surveys) listed as "endangered".

Long story short: The USFS had collected data that showed that the Coastal Population had genetic interchange with the thousands of SE Oregon Plovers (the plovers could fly...so makes sense). Yet the sub-species language enabled the State to pressure the USFS to upgrade the Coastal Population to Endangered...and thus much of the coastal beaches and access were closed to protect the Plover.

The bird was used to close the public vehicle use and even people walking their dogs. There was one peer review study done on the coastal population.....known as the Ruth Wilson Thesis. The thesis hypothesis was that human activity was the problem for the coastal Plovers. The thesis proved just the opposite! Where moderate human activity occurred, there were more plovers (predation had become the demise of the coastal population...after man had planted and reclaimed the open dunal and beach composite with European Beachgrass). That did not matter though...most of the beaches were closed anyway to vehicle use. That led to ODOT relinquishing the beaches to the State Parks...and now you need a State park permit to metal detect the beaches.

The sub species issue needs some common sense applications: That is; basically understanding that a species occupies a given geographic location and that the further you get from that central core habitat location the less population you see. So; in the outer most boundary you may only find a few, and yet that few most often "up lists" the species to "endangered". Once that listing occurs in that geographic location all kinds of limitations come forth. Understanding that the ESA does everything to protect a sub species...and the sub species issue is one that is commonly abused.

I spent 12 years studying and testifying, and even formed a non-profit organization to combat the mis-application of scientific data being applied by the political and eco groups wanting to close public land and access. I gathered all the information from all the agencies (biologists) and found that they had not consulted one another...they each marched to their own drum.

I'll close with simply saying the ESA needs common sense applications and the sub species portion I find to be most troubling! Genetic diversity is important, but it is a consideration that needs attention in the ESA. How many separate "gene pool" populations does one need? What is a viable population gets attention but sub species is a whole different can of worms IMHO.

PS: This was done about 20 years ago...and a recovery plan was made. The coastal population is still below the desired outcome level and I would venture to say that it will never reach the level for delisting. But the "State Bilologists" have secured an everlasting job position. The ecosystem that favored plovers on the coast will never come back.....as man caused changes that go back 100 years have completely changed the dunal/beach ecosystems. Heck a whole new era of "wetlands" (protected) has been created that will not allow man to resolve the loss of an open sand ecosystem favoring plovers.

Bejay
 
Last edited:
While the snowy plover is listed under the ESA, it sounds to me as if your beef is with the State departments of Fish & Game. States maintain their own lists of endangered species, and enforce those lists differently. (It's also entirely possible for a State to have a species listed that's not on the Federal list.) Without knowing the particular chronology of events in this case, it's not entirely clear whether the initial listing of the snowy plover to the ESA was the first indication of trouble, or whether it was initiated by another State or Federal agency. (You mentioned it started with the Forest Service -- they maintain what's known as the "TES" list: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. But I'm not sure that the TES is enforceable. Perhaps that's why they brought other agencies on board.)

I agree with your assessment that sometimes species data is not shared, or arbitrary decisions are made that defy common sense. All I'm saying is that I appreciate, in most cases, a measure of caution when protecting a species. It's better to perhaps act swiftly and prudently to begin with, then adjustments can be made later.

But that is little consolation for those whose lives, or livelihoods, have been affected. I still maintain that it's better to have a centralized, Federal agency managing such matters than State agencies (as you noted) which perhaps aren't acting with the degree of intelligence necessary, or avoiding local interests and/or pressures.
 
bcfromfl said:
This is a subject I know quite a bit about. My wife is a career biologist with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which is the agency in charge of administering and enforcing the ESA. I see nothing in the proposal that will change an awful lot, except for making species data more easily disseminated.

Everyone loves to demonize Federal employees, especially those who have any potential impact on land use. But many don't realize the tip-toe dance the USF&W Service makes in an effort to please a whole host of special interests. They just don't go out willy-nilly and list species on a whim. As a matter of fact, if you want to discuss wasting tax dollars, there are some enviro groups who actively and constantly sue the USF&W to list species they feel need to be added to threatened or endangered lists, but don't meet the criteria of the ESA. A considerable amount of money and resources are spent answering these lawsuits.

I'm just like the rest of you. I'm a miner, and am outraged over unnecessary issues and oversteps that affect our ability to recover gold. But let's keep our focus, and not lose sight of the true villains in this battle. The ESA is important, and while it is unfortunate that some lands have been removed from use because of listed species, I, for one, am glad that there is at least some process to protect what's left of our natural resources. The ESA is only the legal description, enforced by the USF&W. We should be angry at the farmers and ranchers in California for polluting rivers and streams, and the stocking of non-native trout, forcing the protection status for the red-legged frog...not the USF&W Service for responding to the crisis. In each case of land restrictions as a result of the ESA, it is land abuse creating the problem by short-sighted or greedy individuals -- not the Feds.

If left to State or local interests, you would see a lot more species going extinct. I don't think anyone wants that. Many endangered or threatened species are like the proverbial canary in a coal mine -- they are our early warning system for problems that can eventually affect the health of other animals, even human health.

The USF&W Service does a lot of good, that doesn't get much media coverage. They fund many, many environmental projects which restore lands and wetlands that have been destroyed by poor agriculture or industrial projects. There are many successes of species that were on the brink of extinction, which have been restored to healthy levels. It serves everyone to have such an agency on a centralized, Federal level. Local administrators of a similar agency would not be able to do what's required effectively, and would cave to local interests instead of the greater good.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call a 3% success rate all that great.

I am 10 credits short of my Master's Degree in Environmental Science, so I know a lot about this subject.

If the ESA was used to actually save species instead if locking up access we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead it is used to force everyone into living a certain way through judicial fiat. Case in point is your comment on farmers being responsible for the decline in salmon. Just like every other eco your blaming the things you may or may not like in order to force everyone into living a certain way.

It had to be the farmers not things like substrate armoring or interspatial siltation. It had to be the farmers, not overfishing by certain people.

Just like here in Arizona with the loach minnow. Their decline is all the fault of the ranchers and us damned OHV users who drive through the river. It has nothing to do with the invasive crayfish that was brought here by the Game and Fish Department. And of course it was the fishermen's fault it spread. They neglect to tell people that a crayfish can walk on land and survive as long as it's gills stay wet.

So people get chased out of areas due to endangered species that have no hope of recovery. Rotenone is not effective against crayfish. While Baytheon is effective against them, it is not approved for use in U.S. waters. Funny thing about crayfish though, they do not tolerate pollution at all. So if the ranchers and OHV users were polluting the river here, there would be no crayfish and the pollution claim would have merit. Otherwise it is a pile of crap.

And don't get me started on the Mexican Grey Wolf that was reintroduced here. All the Mexican Grey Wolves alive today are descended from the 7 wolves left. Can you say inbred?
 
Well "bcfromfl". The Feds did have the Coastal Population listed as threatened....which I believe you will find to be a position of "needs to be watched". The State put pressure on the USFS to uplist the Coastal population of Plovers. The Feds had determined that there existed "genetic interchange"....and that designating it as a completely isolated "gene pool" was not warranted. But the Eco Groups were in cahoots with the State of Oregon. I know this for a fact because at the Congressional Hearings and Oregon Legislative Hearings the ODFW biologist and the head of the "Eco Groups" would always go have lunch together. I would have lunch with the Regional USFS Head. Two separate entities vying for control.

The Feds ended up bowing to the State....as endless hearings and controversy brought forth by the Eco Groups left them little choice. This same issue can be compared to the Spotted Owl issue. The Feds wanted to continue harvest and had proven scientific methods to adjust harvest to protect Owl habitat. None of that mattered as the State of Oregon and the Congressional leaders wanted to halt timber harvest. This was not a Federal science decision....but a political and State decision (votes).

Once a species is listed to "endangered" the bureaucratic "Federal Agencies" are stuck with it and a whole knew era of "power/control" exists. Delisting of sub species is even more complex.

But as we can see the "political nature" of such things has surfaced and is why this thread was started. Hopefully critters and fauna will not take precedent over humans....as even FLPMA allows for human considerations. But that has been ignored and abused...IMHO

Bejay
 
Bejay said:
Well "bcfromfl". The Feds did have the Coastal Population listed as threatened....which I believe you will find to be a position of "needs to be watched". The State put pressure on the USFS to uplist the Coastal population of Plovers. The Feds had determined that there existed "genetic interchange"....and that designating it as a completely isolated "gene pool" was not warranted. But the Eco Groups were in cahoots with the State of Oregon. I know this for a fact because at the Congressional Hearings and Oregon Legislative Hearings the ODFW biologist and the head of the "Eco Groups" would always go have lunch together. I would have lunch with the Regional USFS Head. Two separate entities vying for control.

The Feds ended up bowing to the State....as endless hearings and controversy brought forth by the Eco Groups left them little choice. This same issue can be compared to the Spotted Owl issue. The Feds wanted to continue harvest and had proven scientific methods to adjust harvest to protect Owl habitat. None of that mattered as the State of Oregon and the Congressional leaders wanted to halt timber harvest. This was not a Federal science decision....but a political and State decision (votes).

Once a species is listed to "endangered" the bureaucratic "Federal Agencies" are stuck with it and a whole knew era of "power/control" exists. Delisting of sub species is even more complex.

But as we can see the "political nature" of such things has surfaced and is why this thread was started. Hopefully critters and fauna will not take precedent over humans....as even FLPMA allows for human considerations. But that has been ignored and abused...IMHO

Bejay
Click to expand...

I remember lot of this one. The claim was the owl couldn't survive without the old growth forests. It's since been found that the owl survives just fine in second and third growth forests.

At the claim was made the owl needed 2500 breeding pairs to survive. It is becoming widely believed that there are now over 5000 breeding pairs and that the original study was PURPOSELY slanted and the owl never needed protection to begin with. Any new study that is tried now is fought tooth and nail because the truth will come out destroying a lot of credibility.
 
Mad Machinist said:
Case in point is your comment on farmers being responsible for the decline in salmon. Just like every other eco your blaming the things you may or may not like in order to force everyone into living a certain way.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I didn't say that farmers had anything to do with the decline of salmon. I said that farmers had a hand in the decline of the red-legged frog, and that AQUACULTURE of salmon introduces disease into fish -- which most likely had a hand in the decline of salmon which was part of the argument against dredging.

I am no "eco"...where is all this hostility coming from? I'm a miner, just trying to present a point of view that often gets lost, and keeps us blaming the wrong agencies and wasting effort fighting the wrong battles.

I have no desire to take part in an internet argument. Have at it. Just don't put words into my mouth.
 
bcfromfl said:
Just for the record, I didn't say that farmers had anything to do with the decline of salmon. I said that farmers had a hand in the decline of the red-legged frog, and that AQUACULTURE of salmon introduces disease into fish -- which most likely had a hand in the decline of salmon which was part of the argument against dredging.

I am no "eco"...where is all this hostility coming from? I'm a miner, just trying to present a point of view that often gets lost, and keeps us blaming the wrong agencies and wasting effort fighting the wrong battles.

I have no desire to take part in an internet argument. Have at it. Just don't put words into my mouth.
Click to expand...

It is a spirited debate, don't take it personally.
I witnessed the "spotted owl" bs. (logging family) The barred owl whupped their ass... but they moved on....relocated.
It is the Liberals that don't even go outside and/or experience the outdoors... that invent this crap from behind their computers.
No one wants entire species eliminated, but there are real world solutions. What I have noticed is certain groups (libs) get completely out of control (unhinged) and without proper scientific facts (the truth) try to stop something just because they don't like it! (BS)
These common core educated, liberal arts majors, ignore all and any scientists, biologists that they did not fund! (TOTAL BS)
Look at both sides!

BC I agree with a % of your opinion/facts/posts. It would be great if it all worked. Fish and dredgers... I worked with a miner dredging, Smith river California, no longer allowed...:BangHead: I was underwater most of the time, being young... strong....Fish would swarm me ! I was stirring up food.....Habitat was better the following year.
I can't speak for the others but when the spotted owl takes jobs, and the "bull trout" which I don't believe even belongs in those waters
takes jobs, causes excessive regulation, excessively in error, people are going to get riled.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
These gubermint agencys need to use REAL scientific facts (NOT made up ideas , hear say), a liberal dose of reason and a large helping of common sense , then all of this would go away! I really don't think protecting the environment or some plant or animal is their main objective ! I think all they want to do is stire up the pot so they can be awarded lots of $$$$$$$$ while using these wacoenviromentterriorist lawyers! They get into the law field and make BIG bucks sueing our Government from their enviro -based group! Id like to see the Trump organization put a end to these BLOOD SUCKERS ability to sue over these issues !
 
bcfromfl said:
Just for the record, I didn't say that farmers had anything to do with the decline of salmon. I said that farmers had a hand in the decline of the red-legged frog, and that AQUACULTURE of salmon introduces disease into fish -- which most likely had a hand in the decline of salmon which was part of the argument against dredging.

I am no "eco"...where is all this hostility coming from? I'm a miner, just trying to present a point of view that often gets lost, and keeps us blaming the wrong agencies and wasting effort fighting the wrong battles.

I have no desire to take part in an internet argument. Have at it. Just don't put words into my mouth.
Click to expand...

I'm not being hostile, just blunt and to the point. I owned and ran my own coring rig for awhile so I am well versed in the crap that passes for science. What happened there is one of the main reasons I now have an environmental degree.

Whether it is the salmon, the red legged frog, the spotted owl, or the loach minnow here, it is all the same. The ESA is used to lock up access and then nothing more is done.

I will give you a perfect example of nothing getting done. Like I said earlier, we have MAJOR problems here in Arizona with invasive crayfish. There is also a hell of a market for LIVE crayfish as a delicacy. Yet access to many of the streams they need removed from is being taken away daily under the guise of "critical habitat designations" making removal of the crayfish all but impossible. Another problem here is Game and Fish will not allow transport of crayfish alive due to possibility of further spread of it. I can tell you now that there are very, very few places it hasn't spread to. All they have to do is build a permit system to transport them live and we are off.

So a problem, that we will never be rid of, now is controlled through the private markets at a profit instead of it costing taxpayers millions. But then again, if the problem is controlled, the various gov't agencies lose power and money. And we can't have that now can we?
 
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere ,diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx
 
When people such as miners and many, many others take a 2nd seat to "critters & fauna"; causing those people (miners) to lose their well being and welfare the debate can get "emotional". Personally I do not mind such discussion and debate and can recognize and understand why things get so "emotional". I have also known for a very long time that it is hard to comprehend the "emotions" of people offering input on forums. There is no doubt that the ESA needs addressing as those who have abused its' intent are the very ones who will "whine & cry" the most when their opportunity for abuse is removed!

Bejay
 
Not so much about access, but there are many reasons for the decline of some salmon runs including drought, loss of habitat caused by gravel roads and blocked culverts, excessive silting of spawning habitats, dams and poor fish ladders , predators such as sea lions, cormorants, and you may say "overfishing" which is a very BROAD term, ( I cringe when I hear that as in "overfishing" by what entity?), the states reduction of hatchbox programs using natural returning broodstock, and the list goes on. Apologies if I side tracked this thread as I can get emotional about this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

One of our own has passed

⬅️ Previous Thread

Where Will The Gold Settle On This Corner?

Next Thread ➡️

Similar threads

dognose
U.S. cannabis shoppers face a market flush with illegal weed
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
Terry Soloman
Terry Soloman
Old Bookaroo
The Myth of Padre La Rue
Replies
5
Views
2K
russau
R
dognose
  • Suggestion Suggestion
The Remains of Thousands of Native Americans Were Returned to Tribes This Year
Replies
0
Views
912
dognose
dognose

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom