We’ve had a brisk response to our post on the Grayling ESA suit filed in Helena this past week;  we’ve probably received more emails regarding this issue that any other we’ve posted on in the past few months.  Here are a couple of the more thoughtful emails that have come in the past few days - we would presume both were written by attorneys, though only one identified himself as such.  As attorneys tend to be sometimes (no offense meant gentlemen) one of these posts is a bit long, but it offers an interesting and well put forth perspective. 

By the way in our very unscientific tally of responses so far, comments are running about 26 to 1 in favor of the parties involved trying to find some solution to the issue other than ESA litigation, and only 1 in 32 have supported the Federation of Fly Fishers joining the suit.   Interestingly only about half of those sending in a comment identified their home state, though of those claiming to live in Montana opposition to the ESA filing is running about 73 to 1.  

Perhaps most interestingly and appropriately, all but two of the more than three hundred responses received thus far have expressed frustration and sorrow for the grayling, whose fate remains in limbo - the two who failed to mention the grayling were too busy commenting on our “stupidity”  using inventive terms we’ve not been called in years.

Appreciate your feedback and readership……

Editors,

For some reason, I cannot post a comment to your blog entry regarding the grayling litigation. Thus, I am e-mailing you directly.

I completely disagree with your position. ESA litigation has been one of the few environmental bright spots over the past two decades.  Without it, I can’t imagine how much more habitat would be developed and how many more species would be lost. Many developers and politicians hate the far-reaching ESA and have been endeavoring to weaken the protections afforded under the ESA for several years. Conveniently for them, the current administration has done nothing to support ESA protections over the past seven years. If public-interest environmental lawyers won’t hold the USFWS’ feet to the fire, who will?  And your block quote about funding problems is one-sided and nonsensical. ESA litigation forces USFWS and the Department of the Interior to reach into their pockets and protect the species they’re tasked with protecting.

Having said all of that, I commend you for taking a side. You straddle the fence in far too many of your posts. Give an opinion; it will make your blog more interesting.

Matt

Editor -

I must admit I was surprised and pleased to read your atriculate post on the recent Grayling ESA suit filed in Helena this week - rarely do any of the fly fishing blogs these days seemingly try to look at things from a balanced perspective.   

Without tipping my hand too much, may I share that I am a retired federal atttorney living in Montana, an avid fly fisherman, a land owner (in the Big Hole Valley of Montana), an active conservationist, and a soon to be terminated lifetime member of the Federation of Fly Fishers.  I worked for over 21 years in the ESA litigation arena, and from firsthand experience I can assure your readers that the process is inordinately slow, extremely costly, and a mammoth frustration to those involved.   Advocates of ESA suits often articulate that without their legal interventions the Federal agencies wouldn’t perform as they’ve been charged, and in rare cases that might be true.   

However, a simple but crucial fact these litigants consistently ignore is that there are only so many federal dollars to go around, and defending against ESA suits consumes a huge amount of the available budgeted monies.  Money spent defending lawsuits can’t be spent on appropriate projects in the field - plain and simple.  Your quote from the Legal Briefs, perhaps better done with a link to the entire article, is accurate.  It is quite simple minded and perhaps even foolish for them to assume that there are endless federal dollars to be spent in this area; the fact is there are not.  An entitlement spending crisis is brewing that will dwarf all spending arguments ever put forth in the past.  I’ll bet everything dear to me in this world that the average Joe out there isn’t going to give a damn about grayling or cutthroats when you’re talking about cutting their social security benefits because there’s just not enough money in the system to fund their monthly checks and pay for their medications.   And as comments in the last few weeks in response to Charlie Rangel’s proposal of the largest tax increase in history have shown, folks aren’t very pleased with the concept of their taxes being raised to pay for increased federal largess.  

To be fair, I have seen some ESA suits that were indeed meritorious and provoked much needed change in system behavior.  By far and away, however, the bulk of these actions in my opinion have been without merit, obstructionist, and based more often on emotion and rhetoric than fact.  Again, that’s my opinion, but I’ve been in the trenches as few have, and dealt with these issues directly and personally. 

If I understand the thrust of your post, it’s two fold.  One, there are better ways to try and solve this issue than federal ESA litigation, I agree.   Two, the Federation of Fly Fishers has pushed their mission a bit far with this one, and in my mind at least, tarnished their long established credibility by the company they’ve chosen to keep.  I for one have cancelled my lifetime membership and will devote my time, resources, and donated efforts to organizations that can and will work to effect positive change in a timely manner, and be better stewards of the resources they claim to hold dear. 

I’ve enjoyed your blog and your reports, and appreciate your at least taking a stand on this issue.  Keep up the good work.

AJ, near Twin Bridges, MT

Technorati Tags:

Tags: Best Fly Fishing Yellowstone: Random Team Ramblings