What the Heck is a Grayling & Why Should We Care?
By Justin Ringsak, New West Unfiltered 11-19-07
Now for some background. There are two distinct species of grayling, fluvial (those that live in rivers) and adfluvial (those that live in lakes). Attempts to introduce adfluvial grayling to rivers have failed; they die out. Nowadays in Montana there are a fairly substantial number of adfluvial grayling, due primarily to years of stocking mountain lakes. On the other hand, fluvial grayling are found only in the Big Hole River. Estimates say there are 6,000 fish, the only population in the lower 48 states; their range used to be much wider, encompassing most of the upper Missouri River watershed. Their numbers have dwindled over the past few decades. Prior to April of this year, the Big Hole River fluvial grayling were considered “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. This classification essentially provided additional incentive for ranchers and landowners along the Big Hole to curb water usage (grayling need cold water temps; more water in the river equals colder temps, less equals higher temps), avoid river contamination from livestock, and limit sediment transfer to the river.
According to a press release from the Center for Biological Diversity (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/macdonald-simultaneous-suits-11-15-2007.html), the grayling was initially listed under the ESA back in 1994; in 2005, the Fish & Wildlife Service elevated the species’ priority number from a 9 to a 3 because it was “at imminent risk of extinction.” In 2006, agency scientists prepared a draft decision to list the grayling as endangered, calling the species’ status “unequivocal.” Then, in April, suddenly, the agency did an about-face on 10 years of science-based policy and decided that fluvial and adfluvial grayling are the same thing, and promptly removed the Big Hole grayling from consideration for any kind of ESA protection.
The drama behind this decision is that a Fish & Wildlife middle manager, a civil engineer, not a scientist, started spinning the agency’s scientific reports to suit political ends. This is fairly well documented (refer to the hyperlinks in the aforementioned Center for Biological Diversity press release). So now a tribe of concerned folks are suing to get the grayling, and some other species similarly mistreated by government politicizing, back under the warm fuzzy umbrella of state-sanctioned protection policy.
In response, Fish & Wildlife seems to have changed their tune. The Big Hole grayling are now not being listed because there are millions of them in Canada. According to an article about the filing of the lawsuit in the Montana Standard on Friday, November 16th, “Grayling decision draws suit” (the full article is available here: http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2007/11/16/butte/hjjciiidjiheih.txt), “The agency decided not to list the Big Hole grayling in part because they are not genetically different enough from other populations. The Big Hole’s estimated 6,000 fluvial arctic grayling do not significantly contribute to the species as part of the range stretching north into Canada, where [Mike] Stempel [the federal agency’s assistant regional director of fisheries and ecological services in Denver] said millions of the fish are found.”
This reasoning is troubling, and it seems to represent a “globalized” way of thinking that neglects the reality of place, locus, “home.” Why do I care about grayling? Well, as a Butte native, the landscape of southwest Montana has given me a heck of a lot. It has shaped my personality, knowledge, and way of being in the world more than I could begin to articulate. Accordingly, I have a heck of a lot of respect for it. And now a fish that has been a part of this landscape far longer than any species of American (except perhaps the Native) is precariously close to disappearing because of the actions of us, civilization, America. A view that condones this fact is anthropocentric, blinded by a sense of man’s own self-importance, lacking in empathy, lacking in respect for the very world that allows us to exist. It is a troubling viewpoint that infects other parts of society as well, it is the viewpoint that leads to professional athletes torturing animals for their own amusement, it is the viewpoint that allows litterers to rationalize covering everything in garbage, it is the viewpoint that disconnects, that separates, that says “us or them”, that gives in entirely to its own wants and desires without consideration, it is, ultimately, the embodiment of selfishness and greed.
The bottom line is this: I’m glad that fluvial grayling are doing great in Canada. But they are a part of Montana, and I don’t want to see Montana delimbed willy-nilly because of the actions of “civilization”, especially not because one politico middle manager with a bad attitude decided to turn 10 years of sound science on its head.
And that bad attitude seems to be infectious. According to the Montana Standard article, “Mike Stempel, the federal agency’s assistant regional director of fisheries and ecological services in Denver, said the suit comes as no surprise. ‘We expect to get sued on everything we do.’”
You expect to get sued on everything you do? I know that we live in a litigious world, but, really? Stempel also defends the agency’s actions with the “there are millions in Canada argument.” I would guess that the argument makes eminent sense to Sempel. He lives in Denver, where there are no grayling. I would wager that he has never set foot anywhere in the Big Hole River valley. Forgive me if I put much more stock in the opinions of a local like Dr. Pat Munday, who has worked tirelessly and thanklessly to protect the River and the grayling. I know Pat, and I know that he has spent more time experiencing the environment of the Big Hole than just about anyone, and certainly more than any bureaucrats in Denver or D.C.
It is more troubling to run into this bad attitude in some locals. Again, from the Montana Standard:
"Harold Peterson of Jackson has partnered with wildlife officials to make improvements on his 3,000-acre ranch to benefit grayling habitat, but said that would likely end if environmental groups force the issue.
Peterson, a member of the Big Hole Watershed Committee, said he’s left water in the river during irrigation season for the past 12 years and uses wells to water his cattle, rather than diverting from Big Swamp Creek.
He’s also improving his feed pen to prevent sediments from entering the creek, a tributary of the Big Hole.
'If they are going to force me into something, they are going to have to fight me tooth and nail,' Peterson said. 'I guess if some of these groups are successful in getting these grayling listed, I don’t think there is going to be a lot of voluntary stuff out of here. I don’t think a lot of us are going to give them water or let them do more restoration on our land.'"
It sounds to me like Mr. Peterson has been acting responsibly, trying to do the best thing for the river ecosystem while keeping his business interests running smoothly. But he seems to be saying that he will stop acting responsibly if someone else “forces” him to act responsibly. I’m all for freedom of choice, but if you are making responsible choices, and then some entity (the government) comes along and says “you have to continue acting responsibly or there will be consequences”, why would you change your behavior? It’s a contrarian sort of freedom of choice that is more concerned with itself as a concept than with the realities of making a choice.
Mr. Peterson’s comment also ignore the fact that it was the agency, not environmental groups or concerned citizens like Dr. Munday, who “forced the issue” by abruptly disregarding their previous 10 years of research and policy.
It is hugely unfortunate that the fate of the grayling will now be decided in court. But that’s where we stand. I hope 6,000 grayling can afford a good lawyer, because they certainly won’t be allowed to represent themselves. [End of article]
Justin, you wrote: "It sounds to me like Mr. Peterson has been acting responsibly, trying to do the best thing for the river ecosystem while keeping his business interests running smoothly. But he seems to be saying that he will stop acting responsibly if someone else “forces” him to act responsibly."
I believe you to have a tin ear if that truly is what you heard. It is hugely unfortuneate that you misrepresent what he is saying. His negotiating, listening, compromising, and partnering with wildlife officials speaks volumns of his true intentions, not to even mention his volutary $$$$ invested in wildlife and water quality. All that goes out the windows when the "experts" walk in and have to self justify their existence with a host of new requirements for others to follow that may have little or no real improvement value and come with much sacrifice and cost.
There are many ways to write this story but to take Mr. Peterson to the woodshed is tragic since it tends to paralyze efforts at real gains outside of the years locked in litigation and innertia. If there were more Mr. Petersons there may not be any issue at all regarding Big Hole water quality. Just my two cents that to vilianize a hero like Mr. Peterson is the wrong way to go to save the Big Hole and the grayling.
Craig, thanks for the thoughtful input. I was certainly not trying to misrepresent nor villify Mr. Peterson. In fact, the voluntary actions of Mr. Peterson and like-minded individuals who live and work on rivers like the Big Hole are the true difference-makers when it comes to preserving the quality of our waters. As a Big Hole River enthusiast, I am grateful for him and those like him.
If outside "experts" are trying to impose regulations "that have little or no real improvement value and come with much sacrifice and cost" on folks like Mr. Peterson in order "to self justify their existence", then I will be the first to applaud his, or anyone's, efforts to put a stop to such needless external meddling. However, as two of plaintiffs have considerable personal experience with the Big Hole, I don't see the agents of this lawsuit as outside "experts", and I don't see an invasion of pushy outsider experts happening as the result of this lawsuit, although I certainly could be wrong. What I object to is the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services' willingness to turn 10 years of policy based on science on its head for no good reason, and the fact that this action is setting the stage for more conflict and less cooperation (it was in this sense that I was quoting Mr. Peterson).
The listing of the grayling, or any species, as "threatened" provided groups and individuals (like Mr. Peterson) with an interest in preserving the grayling with a mechanism that could be used to gain additional support or funding for preservation efforts. Mr. Peterson has done a lot for the Big Hole and its grayling, and, assuming he has done most of his restoration work and irrigation modifications in the past 13 years, he was working in a context in which the grayling was "threatened". That status was changed in April, based on politics rather than science (refer to the Center for Biological Diversity website mentioned in the article, and follow the links for a full account of how and why the grayling, and many other species, were removed from consideration for any sort of ESA protections). The lawsuit filed by the CBD, Dr. Munday, et al. is simply seeking to return US Fish & Wildlife policy regarding the Big Hole grayling to one based in science, not politics.
Ultimately, I get the sense that you are saying that compromise and cooperation are better for the future of our rivers that villifying anyone, and to that sentiment I give a hearty endorsement. That's the true tragedy of the current grayling situation- a decade of cooperation and progress has been compromised because of a political decision. I would end with a word of caution- while it is crucial to not villify those doing good work, like Mr. Peterson, on the one side of the fence, it is equally important to not villify those on the other side, even if they happen to be dreaded "experts."
Justin, I thank you for your clarification and follow-up on Mr. Peterson. I believe compromise and cooperation are better if they lead to action rather than paralysis and fighting for years to come. It's not a matter who's right, but what is right and the greatest good achieved employing the most effective methods and the least resistance, sacrifice, and cost by those willing to commit some "skin in the game."
Tight lines and clean, cool water.
Grayling need water. The Clean Water Act may prevent someone from polluting a stream, but as I understand it, it does nothing to prevent someone from de-watering a stream. It seems that water rights should include a minimum level of instream flow to preserve the beneficial uses of instream flow, such as fish and wildlife habitat. That should be a State right. De-watering a stream is not right, nor beneficial in my mind. I also use to fish the Big Hole for grayling. In the absence of a right to keep instream flows apparent, let's compensate the water rights holders to keep water in the stream. Can a water right be purchased for instream flow purposes?
Comment By Justin Ringsak, 11-20-07Grayling absolutely need water, and they need it cold and clean. Aside from the simple issue of water volume in a river, low flows also generally mean higher temps and less dissolved oxygen, both of which are bad for aquatic life in general, and especially bad for grayling. These facts speak to the importance of the grayling population in the Big Hole; they are a sensitive enough species that, generally speaking, if they are doing well, then the Big Hole River ecosystem is doing well.
Water rights, particularly in Montana, are confusing and often controversial. That's why water rights holders who voluntarily keep water in the stream to maintain adequate flows should be praised; attempts to mandate flows through regulatory means can be effective, but can also stir up conflict, as discussed in previous comments.
The Big Hole Foundation and the Big Hole Watershed Committee have both worked with landowners to try to maintain adequate flows, and they could speak to water rights issues on the Big Hole with more expertise (the Big Hole Foundation's drought management plan can be viewed here: http://www.bhrf.org/drought_mngt.htm). The success of their efforts depend on who you talk to. During the summer of 2007, flows of the Upper Big Hole near Wisdom dipped below 10 cubic feet per second, which is not particularly encouraging. The issue is also complicated by Montana's ongoing drought; it's difficult to determine if low flows are due to the drought and lack of snowmelt, or excessive human use.