By:  Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Having been personally involved, since August of 2000, in Nevada’s process of planning and building on-the-ground enhancement activities to benefit Sage Grouse, http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/sg/plan/SGPlan063004.pdf the politically-motivated court decision by an Idaho-based judge came as a slap in the face of the many hours volunteers and wildlife professionals throughout the West worked to make a difference for the species and its habitat. 

This judge, with a well-established track record of anti-livestock grazing rulings, on the basis of whether infinitesimal bureaucratic hoops have been met, determined in his ruling that the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needed a do-over on the basis of “who was in the room” (or wasn’t in the room) when the decision was made. http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46%3AFederal+Judge+Sends+Back+Sage-grouse+Decision&Itemid=95

We are supposed to believe that the foundation of Endangered Species Act decisions is “the best available science”.  

Based on what we know now, documenting who is in the room is another critical requirement -- although it is uncertain whether this “science” will cut both ways. 

Unlike science that yields consistent results – this “who’s in the room science” probably will depend on if the listing decision comes out in favor of those championing the cause for listing. 

Based on the accusations that lead up to the first Sage Grouse listing decision, as well as the court case which caused the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-examine the decision, it seems possible that “who’s in the room science” may only apply when the species isn’t listed.

Attempts to make meaningful, legislative and regulatory reforms to make the Endangered Species Act more balanced are decried as selfish acts by those who seek to undermine the integrity of this holy environmental grail, but court decisions from an anti-livestock grazing Idaho judge on the basis of who was in the room, is considered as a meritorious act. 

The final decision on what “the science” says the direction for listing Sage Grouse has been agreed to (with and through the court process) be on hold until the summer of 2009.  Once again, the impression is that the decision will again depend on “who’s in the room”  -- (as in the case of who’s the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C.)