Keep up the fight guys! Just 2 hrs north of you in the Cranbrook area we are dealing with government funded super greenies. Who this spring are spending $750,000.00 of tax payer money to ogment our herd of a dozen caribou with 20 new caribou from up north. Our herd numbers have been steadily dropping for the last 20 years and they have asked us as rec users to give away more and more. It just seems like it will never end and I hope your battle goes better than ours.
the north idaho caribou battle is back
- Thread starter TIM
- Start date
Caribou
It will be fine with me if they create a plan and it works, but my issue is that if it doesn't work they will never reopen the land. They need to have a timeline and deadlines so that if it fails it will be scrapped and the land reopened. If they are going to close land then they should start with a stip near the boarder. If the Caribou begin to move down into that area and there is substatial proof that they can not survive with motorized vehicles even remotely near them, then start moving that line south.
Everything indicates that the caribou will not make a come back. They planted them in Washington and they were all back in Canada within a few years. There isn't even enough snowmobile traffic up there for them to warrant grooming the trails I pay money for, so I can't believe snowmobiles chased them away.
It doesn't make sense to close the areas of Idaho that were destroyed by fire because there isn't any food for the caribou and there wont be until a substantial forest grows back.
It also doesn't make any sense to close the area in question in Washington because that has been logged and while there is some older forest that may be able to support some Caribou, it would not be able to support a large number.
The proposed area isn't all that far from a couple highways anyway. From the top of it you can see two highways and on a calm day you can hear the cars below. When it comes to scaring Caribou the biologists are the worst offenders. They fly planes around the mountains to look for snowmobile tracks. If they do in fact run from noise then they will run from a plane. The forest service uses planes to scatter elk before hunting season, so it will run Caribou. They also take their own snowmobiles into the area when doing their research. When they saw us on the trail outside the closed area, they waited around the corner trying to catch us going into the same closed area they had just been in.
They were up there again on Saturday at Bunchgrass Meadows and Monumental Mt. They were making sure that no one has been snowmobiling in the already closed area, which doesn't have any Caribou. They tend to go up every Wednesday and Saturday starting this time of year.
Almost forgot to mention the Lemmings they are trying to save in Bunchgrass. Snowmobiles are chasing rodents around too.
It will be fine with me if they create a plan and it works, but my issue is that if it doesn't work they will never reopen the land. They need to have a timeline and deadlines so that if it fails it will be scrapped and the land reopened. If they are going to close land then they should start with a stip near the boarder. If the Caribou begin to move down into that area and there is substatial proof that they can not survive with motorized vehicles even remotely near them, then start moving that line south.
Everything indicates that the caribou will not make a come back. They planted them in Washington and they were all back in Canada within a few years. There isn't even enough snowmobile traffic up there for them to warrant grooming the trails I pay money for, so I can't believe snowmobiles chased them away.
It doesn't make sense to close the areas of Idaho that were destroyed by fire because there isn't any food for the caribou and there wont be until a substantial forest grows back.
It also doesn't make any sense to close the area in question in Washington because that has been logged and while there is some older forest that may be able to support some Caribou, it would not be able to support a large number.
The proposed area isn't all that far from a couple highways anyway. From the top of it you can see two highways and on a calm day you can hear the cars below. When it comes to scaring Caribou the biologists are the worst offenders. They fly planes around the mountains to look for snowmobile tracks. If they do in fact run from noise then they will run from a plane. The forest service uses planes to scatter elk before hunting season, so it will run Caribou. They also take their own snowmobiles into the area when doing their research. When they saw us on the trail outside the closed area, they waited around the corner trying to catch us going into the same closed area they had just been in.
They were up there again on Saturday at Bunchgrass Meadows and Monumental Mt. They were making sure that no one has been snowmobiling in the already closed area, which doesn't have any Caribou. They tend to go up every Wednesday and Saturday starting this time of year.
Almost forgot to mention the Lemmings they are trying to save in Bunchgrass. Snowmobiles are chasing rodents around too.
D
DOO DAWG
Well-known member
http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/t...ing-of-the-selkirk-caribou-must-be-withdrawn/
Taxonomic tricks at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: why the ESA listing of the Selkirk caribou must be withdrawn
May 9, 2012
Brandon Middleton
In recent decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has spent countless time, money, and effort over a creature known as the southern Selkirk Mountain caribou. The Selkirk caribou was listed as an endangered species in 1984, and its habitat includes portions of Idaho, Washington, and southern British Columbia. The Selkirk caribou is not a species per se but is instead a population of the overall caribou species (Rangifer tarandus) that is found throughout North America.
Caribou image courtesy USFWS Recovery efforts for the Selkirk caribou have been less than successful. Attempts in the 1990′s to augment the population through the introduction of other caribou from Canada backfired–the augmentation did not improve the long-term outlook for the Selkirk caribou, while transported caribou are believed to have been lost to mountain lion predation. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service radio-collared 10 members of the Selkirk population for tracking and scientific purposes, but several of these members died within a year of being radio-collared.
Undaunted by these mishaps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to doggedly pursue illusive Selkirk caribou recovery efforts, no matter the cost. In the last decade, and under litigation pressure from environmental groups, the Service acquiesced to court-ordered injunctions of snowmobiling activities in Idaho. The supposed goal of these injunctions was to give the Selkirk caribou room to live and thrive in forests where snowmobile trails are found. Yet the link between the dire circumstances faced by the Selkirk caribou and snowmobiling activities has always been tenuous, and in fact the caribou’s population level has seen little improvement since the injunctions have gone into place. Meanwhile, local communities and businesses have suffered unnecessarily due to the loss of snowmobile-related income and revenue. Local resort owners reported losses of up to 70% of their revenue following caribou-related trail closures, and the situation for recreational enthusiasts will likely worsen if the Service November 2011 proposal to designate 375,000 acres of critical habitat for the Selkirk caribou in Idaho and Washington becomes final.
As is often the case with federal agencies, however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has operated throughout these developments under the assumption of regulatory authority, neglecting to consider whether the law and science justify the failed recovery efforts for the Selkirk caribou. But as a petition filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation makes clear, the listing of the Selkirk caribou population under the ESA is illegal and contradicts the Service’s own taxonomic data.
The issue presented by PLF’s petition is complex but important. Under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may list as endangered or threatened any “species,” which is defined under Section 3 of the statute to “include[] any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” The definition of “species” admittedly gives the Service broad authority to evaluate the conservation status of hundreds of species, subspecies, and distinct population segments throughout the country.
This authority is not unlimited, however. Notably, Congress did not give the Service the authority to list individual animals as endangered or threatened, or to list populations of species that are so small and insignificant that there is no meaningful relationship between the population and the species of which it is part. If the Service possessed such authority, it could list as endangered the squirrel that lives in your backyard–even though the overall squirrel population may be healthy. The feds might be interested in protecting your backyard squirrel given your plans to build a tree house or pool. Of course, this would be an absurd assertion of federal authority, and Congress made sure this type of overreach would not happen by providing a narrow definition of “species.”
Indeed, as courts have recognized, “[l]isting distinctions below that of subspecies or a [distinct population segment] of a species are not allowed under the ESA.” See Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001). Yet the problem with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s listing of the Selkirk caribou population is that it is based on such an unauthorized taxonomic distinction–the Service impermissibly examined the Selkirk caribou’s conservation status in relationship to the mountain caribou “ecotype” located in British Columbia, as opposed to the population’s relationship to the overall caribou (Rangifer tarandus) species of which it is part. But if this sort of taxonomic trick is allowed to stand under the ESA, then nothing prevents the Service from listing a backyard population of an otherwise healthy species.
This is the regulatory reality faced by PLF’s clients, Bonner County, Idaho, and the Idaho State Snowmobile Association. Bonner County, ISSA, and their residents and members have witnessed the loss of cherished recreational opportunities due to the misplaced listing of the Selkirk caribou population under the ESA. They know that things will only get worse if and when the Service’s recent critical habitat proposal becomes final.
Fortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has time to do the right thing and delist the Selkirk caribou population. For the sake of PLF’s clients, the law, and taxonomic common sense, let’s hope the Service recognizes its listing of the Selkirk caribou population under the ESA is not warranted.
Taxonomic tricks at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: why the ESA listing of the Selkirk caribou must be withdrawn
In recent decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has spent countless time, money, and effort over a creature known as the southern Selkirk Mountain caribou. The Selkirk caribou was listed as an endangered species in 1984, and its habitat includes portions of Idaho, Washington, and southern British Columbia. The Selkirk caribou is not a species per se but is instead a population of the overall caribou species (Rangifer tarandus) that is found throughout North America.
Undaunted by these mishaps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to doggedly pursue illusive Selkirk caribou recovery efforts, no matter the cost. In the last decade, and under litigation pressure from environmental groups, the Service acquiesced to court-ordered injunctions of snowmobiling activities in Idaho. The supposed goal of these injunctions was to give the Selkirk caribou room to live and thrive in forests where snowmobile trails are found. Yet the link between the dire circumstances faced by the Selkirk caribou and snowmobiling activities has always been tenuous, and in fact the caribou’s population level has seen little improvement since the injunctions have gone into place. Meanwhile, local communities and businesses have suffered unnecessarily due to the loss of snowmobile-related income and revenue. Local resort owners reported losses of up to 70% of their revenue following caribou-related trail closures, and the situation for recreational enthusiasts will likely worsen if the Service November 2011 proposal to designate 375,000 acres of critical habitat for the Selkirk caribou in Idaho and Washington becomes final.
As is often the case with federal agencies, however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has operated throughout these developments under the assumption of regulatory authority, neglecting to consider whether the law and science justify the failed recovery efforts for the Selkirk caribou. But as a petition filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation makes clear, the listing of the Selkirk caribou population under the ESA is illegal and contradicts the Service’s own taxonomic data.
The issue presented by PLF’s petition is complex but important. Under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may list as endangered or threatened any “species,” which is defined under Section 3 of the statute to “include[] any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” The definition of “species” admittedly gives the Service broad authority to evaluate the conservation status of hundreds of species, subspecies, and distinct population segments throughout the country.
This authority is not unlimited, however. Notably, Congress did not give the Service the authority to list individual animals as endangered or threatened, or to list populations of species that are so small and insignificant that there is no meaningful relationship between the population and the species of which it is part. If the Service possessed such authority, it could list as endangered the squirrel that lives in your backyard–even though the overall squirrel population may be healthy. The feds might be interested in protecting your backyard squirrel given your plans to build a tree house or pool. Of course, this would be an absurd assertion of federal authority, and Congress made sure this type of overreach would not happen by providing a narrow definition of “species.”
Indeed, as courts have recognized, “[l]isting distinctions below that of subspecies or a [distinct population segment] of a species are not allowed under the ESA.” See Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001). Yet the problem with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s listing of the Selkirk caribou population is that it is based on such an unauthorized taxonomic distinction–the Service impermissibly examined the Selkirk caribou’s conservation status in relationship to the mountain caribou “ecotype” located in British Columbia, as opposed to the population’s relationship to the overall caribou (Rangifer tarandus) species of which it is part. But if this sort of taxonomic trick is allowed to stand under the ESA, then nothing prevents the Service from listing a backyard population of an otherwise healthy species.
This is the regulatory reality faced by PLF’s clients, Bonner County, Idaho, and the Idaho State Snowmobile Association. Bonner County, ISSA, and their residents and members have witnessed the loss of cherished recreational opportunities due to the misplaced listing of the Selkirk caribou population under the ESA. They know that things will only get worse if and when the Service’s recent critical habitat proposal becomes final.
Fortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has time to do the right thing and delist the Selkirk caribou population. For the sake of PLF’s clients, the law, and taxonomic common sense, let’s hope the Service recognizes its listing of the Selkirk caribou population under the ESA is not warranted.
W
whittaker727
Well-known member
Hopefully this holds true and we got this settled and got our land back! Big thanks to all those involved and who put up the fight.
http://www.fws.gov/idaho/home/CaribouFCHNov2012.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/idaho/home/CaribouFCHNov2012.pdf
I met a guy once who said he saw a caribou,..........
so I shot him
so I shot him
Would this ruling open up Bee Hive Lakes, Harrison Lake and the Upper Pack River?
sidehillsam
yes and no. Yes it will, but the IPNF is going thru a travel plan revision. so it will depend on the travel plan, which is supposed to come out soon. I am hoping to go explore there this winter.
tim
yes and no. Yes it will, but the IPNF is going thru a travel plan revision. so it will depend on the travel plan, which is supposed to come out soon. I am hoping to go explore there this winter.
tim
without getting all technical. I just got off of the phone with the forest service. WE WILL BE RIDING WHERE WE ROAD LAST YEAR. NOTHING HAS BEEN REOPENED. THE FOREST SERVICE IS STILL UNDER A COURT INJUNCTION.
SO WE HAVE BEEN CELBRATING FOR NOTHING.
SO WE HAVE BEEN CELBRATING FOR NOTHING.
M
mtn.missle
New member
Thanks for keeping up with this Tim.
I understand that we will be getting the smith creek area back next year ? Do you have any Info on that ?
