Where do I start? for fishing, the same species of Chinook Salmon is for sale in the store as is endangered in the headwaters of the salmon river Idaho. The sport salmon season on the lower COlumbia River and the Snake River catches and kills the exact same fish that when they swim up the Salmon River are now considered to be endangered species. The same steelhead species in the same river are either sport fish or Threatened species, depending on where they are in the drainage.
The bull trout is doing fine in upper salmon river, but it is a federal crime to catch one or accidentally harm one due to regulatory status as T and E. The Canada wolf was introduced into the gray wolf habitat, and now we protect introduced Canadian wolves to encourage them as they kill native elk and deer in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. what does this mean to the sportsman?
The sportsman gets no say in the future of a species once the fish and wildlife service gets a species listed. Even with the wolf at recorded verified high population densities in three states, it is not yet manageable as a state game animal. We are held hostage once a species is listed by ESA. For these reasons, the huge ratio of anti-listing input for sage grouse listing (14:1 comments against listing). sportsmen know its gone forever as as a sport hunted species if the feds get involved through the ESA. From personal experience with all these agencies and issues, I can tell you that state rights and state agencies lose all rights adn power if the ESA gets involved.
Now, where do sportsmen get benefit? Habitat is protected, habitat is preserved, habitat is restored. There is definite benefit to sportsman if habitat is protected.
What is needed? an honest reappraisal of what is a species. protecting each and every individual family group or every subpopulation of every low density species is outside the intent or need ESA. This is way off base from the original Noah's Ark approach to endangered species. What if NOAH had brought on board two each of every family group? the boat would have sunk.
Now we have problems where traditional fish and game management is not possible because of competition with native trout species.
We will have problems with tree thinning of drought killed, dead and beetle killed for forest fire control conflicting with spotted owl claims for maintaining old growth trees. we will have problems with range management conflicting with native grass species and invasive forage and noxious weed species rules...to spray or not to spray?
I have seen conflict with salt cedar (a terrible plant all around, that sucks up water, spoils the land with salt secretion, outcompetes all other speices of plants, and then makes thick dense fire hazards that are impenetrable. The goofy federal agencies find a couple of southwestern willow flycatchers using the saltcedar thickets as cover, and now the saltcedar, a noxious weed if ever there was one, is considered critical to survival of the SWFC. We would all be better off if the salt cedar was eliminated. these conflicts make for crazy outcomes: protect saltcedar extensively due to rare incidence of SWFC in artificial created or maintained habitat of invasive non-native species.
We have problems with critical habitat designations proposed for entire regions of the USA, like the bull trout where entire drainage basins become hostage to single species protection. Exercise of water rights for farmers and communities and forest agancies will be subject to protectionist single-species zealots in USFWS and NMFS. Access to public lands can be curtailed for all uses, due to a single species interest.
Other than that, its all good.
Thanks for asking.
Jamie Sturgess
