What the Heck is a Grayling & Why Should We Care?

By Justin Ringsak, Unfiltered 11-19-07

The Center for Biological Diversity, a multi-state nonprofit focused on protecting wildlife, along with the Federation of Fly Fishers; the Western Watersheds Project; Butte, Montana's own ecorover Pat Munday; and former Montana fishing guide George Wuerthner on Thursday, November 15th, sued the federal government regarding the removal of a number of species for consideration for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In Montana, the suit addresses the removal of the “threatened” status of the fish with the unwieldy title of Big Hole River fluvial arctic grayling.

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.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.