Great question, I have no expertise, but this is the conclusion I've come to.
My shortest answer: 10th amendment - prohibits the federal government from forcing STATES to enforce FED law. BUT states like WY, MT and ID enforce ESA grizzly endangerment to continue to receive federal funding.
- ESA is enforced/authority by US Fish and Wildlife Service (feds)
- ESA establishes state funding to follow ESA
- States F&G receive federal funding and they enforce/follow this fed law to continue to receive
- Meaning WY, MT and ID cannot have a grizzly season bc the ESA has not delisted and states will potentially lose all funding (not just F&G) if not adhere to ESA. (similar to clean water act, EPA, etc)
Longer answer, because like you I think about this crapola too much -
EPA is enforced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the principal federal agency tasked with conservation, protection, and restoration of fish and wildlife. Prior to the ESA the fed govt had no say in 'endangered species' bc like you said, states own the wildlife within their borders. The feds know the states have vastly more experience and assets to conserve wildlife and it was under this premise the ESA was passed. The FWS envisioned themselves as 'an overseeing operation' to ensure the states were following the fed law. The solution was (1) for the feds to give the "green light" on states' wildlife management programs, meaning the ESA relied in existing state programs, (2) ESA gave the authority to the feds to list a species, (3) Fed and states would enter into a cooperative to protect listed species, (4) fed govt provides funding to states to enforce fed law (side bar - when states enforce fed law its always under this premise - which begs the question of the 10th amendment). ESA establishes specific criteria to list a species and required programs to
protect. The ESA does not require
goals/parameters/etc that lead to delisting. The EPA is a defense mechanism to prevent extinction. ESA recovery plans do not place legal burden on the FWS to delist a species.
That's my understanding of the authority of the ESA and why grizzly's cannot be delisted. The ESA needs to have an amendment to fully jive the states ownership of the wildlife within its borders and preserve and perpetuate the wildlife within their borders according to federal goals and required cooperative agreements that have end dates which lead to species recovery and lift the ESA regulation.
EVEN LONGER - the Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon were listed in 1992 and steelhead in 1997 but here we are 30 years later and the kings aren't back.
BC the ESA gives the FWS the authority to prevent the extinction of a species, and they haven't become extinct but they are still lingering. The 2017 ESA recovery plan for the Snake River Chinook states the ESA plan is to "improve the viability of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead, and the ecosystems upon which they depend, to the point that the ESU and DPS are self-sustaining in the wild and no longer require ESA protection" but makes no assertion of how many or how much or how long (100 years?) etc. IN the case of grizzly's it is the same. Idaho's plan for chinook isn't to exceed population levels beyond ESA delisting (Idaho only wants delisting) which is a piss poor goal to just meet the minimum. I am not well versed in the grizzly spectrum, but I can only guess that they have a similar approach to grizzly's - meet the ESA minimum required to delist and that's a flag to just get relisted, right? The new ESA plan for the chinook should come out this year.
