echoesintotheecoworldpdcst

The hosts of the podcast Echo Systems of the Eco-World discuss a controversy in Idaho regarding a halt in wolf trapping and grizzly bear habitats. Environmental organizations argue that trapping in grizzly bear habitats violates the Endangered Species Act. The court found that Idaho's trapping laws violated the ESA, but did not grant the extensive remedy sought by the plaintiffs. The court restricted trapping activities to specific periods when grizzly bears are not in their dens. The hosts discuss the impact on the community and the environment and propose ways to optimize the interests of both stakeholders. They emphasize the importance of understanding environmental law and identifying stakeholders. The controversy highlights both legal and ethical issues. The hosts conclude by inviting listeners to share their opinions on the matter. Hey, welcome back to Echo Systems of the Eco-World. I'm your co-host Rochelle. And I'm your other co-host Luke. Our goal with this podcast is to discuss different legal and ethical topics about the environment, dissect them through our interpretations, and debate different opposing opinions. Today we will be discussing a controversy in Idaho regarding a halt in wolf trapping, antediluvian, and grizzly bear habitats. This law was announced last month on March 19, 2024, and has been a vocal topic of the environmental community, both amongst the ecosystem and the community of Idaho. Alright, let's dive into it. Section 1 of the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, of 1973 is a critical provision that deals with the prohibited acts concerning endangered and threatened species. The plaintiffs include different environmental organizations, like the Center for Biological Diversity, Footloose Montana, and Friends of the Clear Water. These organizations argue Idaho's continued authorization and expansion of trapping and snaring in grizzly bear habitats. The reasoning is written to allow the unlawful take of grizzly bears, which is in violation of Section 9. The most significant restriction under Section 9 is the prohibition of any species listed as endangered. The term take is broadly defined to include actions such as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting. This is important because it combines the conflicts of the stakeholders of the ecosystem and the community in Idaho. Ultimately, trying to find a balance between these opposing viewpoints and navigating a consensus is one of the best ways to benefit our society as a whole. Now that we've established the importance and the overview of this case, we will be going over some pro and con arguments and opposing viewpoints. So, it's been stated that Idaho objected to some expert witness testimony and documents relied upon the plaintiffs, arguing that they couldn't be presented in a form admissible in court. Plaintiffs argued that they met their summary judgment burden, even without the disputed evidence. The court then agreed, focusing on evidence introduced by Idaho. It found the objective evidence not material and denied those objections. Additionally, the court established material facts where there were no genuine dispute unless otherwise noted. The court also has a judicial opinion on this case. So, I'm going to read off of what the text says and I'm going to put in other words as well. So, the plaintiffs met their burden on summary judgment and established that Idaho's recreational trapping laws and rules violate the ESA. However, on the other hand, the court finds plaintiffs did not establish their entitlement to the broad remedy they seek. Instead, the court's injunction will be limited to the period when grizzly bears are reasonably certain to be out of their dens. So, in other words, the plaintiffs proved that the defendants violated the ESA or the Endangered Species Act, but did not fully prove their complaint themselves and did not deserve the extensive remedy that they requested initially. So, the court has decided to restrict certain activities such as hunting or trapping only during specific periods when grizzly bears are active or not in their hibernating dens. So, now we're going to do an interview section where Rochelle and I go back and forth asking questions regarding the current grizzly bear case. So, Rochelle, how would you define environmental law in this case right here? So, I would say that environmental law focuses on regulating the interaction between humans and the natural environment to protect the Earth's resources and ensure sustainable management. Nice, okay. So, Luke, how do you think the wolf shampooing affects the community versus the environment? So, obviously, I believe that this puts a lot of endangerment and compromise towards these grizzly bears. Obviously, since these bears are endangered, it puts them at an even more, like, harsher risk for being extinct. So, I think it's important to keep the natural flow of the environment and nature to progress and to be in a better shape for future uses and for Idaho in general. Economically speaking, I believe that the only downfall in this case would be just sales and revenues for fur and meat and whatnot for Idaho citizens may go down insignificantly. It might not be as popular in Idaho, but that's the only biggest damage that I can see coming for the community. So, that's the differences between how I can see it affecting the community and the environment. But I'm going to ask this question to you now. What do you think are the best ways to optimize the best of our stakeholders, and those stakeholders being the environment and the community? So, I think the best ways to optimize the best of our stakeholders is to increase public awareness and education on environmental issues, like, for example, putting out PSAs, or the government can also implement national awareness campaigns to foster a culture of conservation and sustainability. I believe we should also have or provide establishments of great lake sanctuaries or preservation sites to give these creatures more of a natural habitat and feel of Idaho. So, to ask this last question, legally and ethically speaking, what responsibilities does the government have to protect those endangered, injured species? So, I think that the government, like I mentioned before, should enforce hunters to hunt at specific times, specific days, and specific areas to prevent accidental or unintentional capturing of these grizzly bears. I think, like you said earlier as well, like bringing in these new issues like PSAs or different awareness campaigns to further prevent these huntings from happening is also a very good idea. And I think what the law has been doing currently with, I think it was setting up certain times and days hunters can actually hunt, which the law is doing a very good job with currently, is good, and the fact that it was established is also very good. I think that hunters can also get the best out of their hunting experience by following these laws and it'll affect the hunters and the citizens of Idaho in an equal amount of time and it'll be the best possible way to optimize both stakeholders like we mentioned earlier. I think that the government should also pardon using certain traps rather than just wolf hunting traps because I think that that could also be susceptible to a lot of unintentional trapping of bears and whatnot. So, keeping in mind of different and specific traps used at certain times and areas would be the best idea. But ethically speaking, I think that the government has a social responsibility and a societal responsibility since the flow of having certain species being kept alive is so important for the environment and for our society as a whole. I think that idea of keeping everything in circle is not only just an ethically good way but a biologically good way of keeping everything in check and I guess keeping the fuel of society from going and progressing further. So, some of the key takeaways here. We're just going to go through that for a second and then we're going to go into the conclusion afterwards. So, what do you think your key takeaways for identifying environmental law do you think, Rochelle? Yeah, I think that understanding environmental law is necessary to ensure that environmental protection is taken into consideration for all levels of decision making from individual actions to global policies and helps maintain the balance necessary for the sustainable existence of all species. So, now that you got that done, what do you think the importance of identifying stakeholders has been? I think we should identify stakeholders to optimize the best situation for both sides. So, Luke, what did you take away or learn from this? So, what I got out of this whole experience was that I understood how to differentiate legal and ethical reasoning. I think that the better we understand the difference between legal aspects and ethical or moral aspects, it helps us to get the most objective view or opinion out of a situation. In this case, we were able to get the best view out of this case of wolf trapping and whether it should be legal or illegal or not. And I think I got a good amount of understanding out of everything here. Alright, cool. So, in conclusion, this wolf trapping and grizzly bear habitat controversy not only brings up legal but also ethical issues. We've gone over the legal and ethical sides of the situation, but we want to know what your opinion is on this matter and how would you approach this? Again, this is your co-host, Rochelle. And I'm your other co-host, Luke. And that's it for this week's episode on Echoes into the Eco-World. Thanks so much for joining us. Goodbye.