Diary of a Mad Voter: Joan McCarter
Grousing Around
Is the sage grouse the 21st century's spotted owl?
By Joan McCarter, 8-08-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Wyoming Governor Freudenthal last week issued an executive order that seeks to strike a balance between energy development and protection of the habitat for what’s left of the state’s sage grouse. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been directed by a federal judge to determine whether the sage grouse should receive protections under the federal Endangered Species Act, something Freudenthal and other Western governors would just as soon avoid.
Federal protection for the sage grouse would have dire consequences for Wyoming’s energy industry, officials say. The bird lives and breeds in the same sagebrush flats that have seen rapid development for natural gas and other energy sources in recent years.
In addition to Wyoming, sage grouse live in 10 other Western states. Scientists say the bird’s population has plummeted in the face of recent energy development.
Freudenthal’s order adopts maps developed by the state’s Sage Grouse Implementation Team that block out nearly 15 million acres of the state identified as the most critical sage grouse habitat. The state plan calls for limiting future energy development within those areas to make sure that the birds survive, but success of the effort would ultimately depend on getting cooperation from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which manages most of the area, and the energy industry itself.
The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote to the state in May saying that it believes Wyoming’s “core population area strategy” is a sound framework for conserving the birds.
Freudenthal’s solution has been rejected by many in the conservation community who say it’s about time that the grouse were listed, and embraced by others as a “a courageous and commonsense act to protect the unique resources of the region.”
Industry, however, seems to be readying for a fight:
Challenging the recent federal sage grouse protection rules in the Powder River Basin is one of the priorities of a new organization of energy-related businesses and workers in northeast Wyoming.
It’s an old playbook for the extractive industries, creating a “grassroots” movement of “workers” to oppose any state or federal restriction on industry in the name of jobs. Colorado has been the most recent battleground while the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission considered “requiring stronger wildlife habitat safeguards, higher bonding amounts, more thorough notification of landowners, and setting new gas wells back from streams and public water sources.”
Industry trade groups pushed back with full-page newspaper ads, radio spots, and direct mailings.
Facing something of a sea change, gas companies, their contractors and their supporters took the grassroots approach to new heights, completely overwhelming similar efforts by local environmental groups at a June 10 public hearing in Grand Junction on the new rules. Gas workers and realtors circulated misleading e-mails to rally industry supporters, claiming that Greenpeace planned to flood the meeting with five busloads of radical environmentalists and stoking fears over lost jobs. The gas boomtown Trinidad became an instant media darling when its Chamber of Commerce bused 80 community members across the state to protest the new rules. Companies encouraged workers to stop in; some even paid attendees for their time....
But it appears those hardworking folks won’t be out of a job anytime soon. As gas companies publicly wrangled with Colorado’s oil and gas commission over the rules—which are expected to pass by mid-August—they quietly continued to invest millions of dollars in infrastructure and land in the state, and applications for drilling permits have increased by about 27 percent over this time last year.
With over 13 million acres of Wyoming public land already leased for oil and gas development and the boom there showing no signs of slowing, the hardworking folks in that state are unlikely to be out of a job soon, either, sage grouse or no sage grouse. But the industry appears ready to take a hard line against any protections, even Freudenthal’s conservative approach.
There doesn’t seem to be much questions of which side the Bush administration’s BLM is going to come down on. On the heels of Freudenthal’s order, the BLM proceeded “with an oil and gas lease sale on Tuesday that included more than 50,000 acres within the state’s identified “core” areas for sage grouse. However, the agency pulled, or “deferred,” six of 173 lease parcels from the sale so it could further analyze the development implications in some of those core areas, according to the agency.”
When I started digging around for more information on the BLM’s sage grouse plans, I found this link: http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/sage_grouse/overview.htm. In the few days after locating that plan, the few days since Freudenthal’s order was issued, that sage grouse overview page has been redirected to this one which greets you with the message: “Western Oil Shale Potential: 800 Billion Barrels of Recoverable Oil.”
[End of article]Sadly the bill does not adress the main problems for grouse, disease, (they seem very suseptible to WNV) predators, and housing for humans.
I do not beleive that anything we do will prevent listing of the birds. Too many environmental groups are invested in eliminating or at least controlling the mining and drilling industries. All they have to do is trot to Missoula and file in the 9th District, and they have what they want.
So just how do you prevent sage grouse from being decimated by West Nile? They vaccinate horses. Sort of hard to do that with birds in the wild.
When you factor in West Nile and NGO driven penchant for burning all in their care, public land mangers are really powerless to do anything for sage grouse. They will evolve to survive in a changed world, or they will end up like 99.999% of the species that have been on earth to this point: extinct.
So, when you really can't do anything for a critter, you study it. And that, in and of itself, is not a benign endeavor. The study of birds seems to be just another way to handle them, stick them with needles, band them, leave human stink on them, and then set them free to try to survive as confused and wounded critters in an environment that quickly weeds out those who suffer from any momentary lack of awareness and agility.
Sage grouse problems would better be served by human population controls that lessened human impacts on the environment. The real problem, we all know, is too many people. Our immigration driven population surge is the culprit, the driving force in the supply and demand pressures for land, for resources, for food, for shelter, for energy. Put a lid on that, and you will be doing the sage grouse a great favor.
You are right of course about all of the research. One of the "studies" on the effect of drilling on the birds was done half way across the state, where they made all kinds of recorded noises on a lek far removed from the rigs. I'm sure setting up all of that stuff and making all of that noise was supposed to simulate what the birds are exposed to. Of course it ranks up there with the study on the effects of buffalo urine versus elk urine on the meadows in Yellowstone....They made artificial urine in a lab and shipped it to the researchers. I guess that makes it easier to get the "right" results.
I'm not a researcher,but it does seem to me that going to the area where there are rigs and birds and watching them there might be a little more accurate.
As for controlling the population, I don't know what can be done, stopping immigration would help our country, but not overall in the world.
For sage grouse we need to protect the last remaining large areas of intact sage grouse habitat in a public private partnership. They are a bird of climax wilderness sagebrush-grasslands and intermixed wetlands, springs and creeks. They require very large landscapes to survive and their habitat isn't very "sexy" to protect. Unless we are willing to do this the future for the sage grouse and other sagebrush ecosystem dependent species is bleak indeed.
Comment By Craig Moore, 8-08-08Glenn, I believe the key is not to pit use versus animals. We are smart enough to responsibly develop energy and accomodate wildlife. As to oil shale there is ongoing research on in situ methods that do not disturb the soil with giant excavators. As to oil and gas, smart site location and directional drilling are top on the list to lessen the impact. Growing up in Montana, I saw back in the 60's vast clouds of SG's thriving in and around oil and gas wells. Large areas of sage went under the plow and the populations dropped. Given world population increases and the demand for food I don't see the pressure lessening to plow even more land.
Comment By Marion, 8-08-08Glenn, I am a loss to understand the disconnect with reality. Creating falsely elevated fuel prices by preventing drilling can cause folks to freeze to death becaue they can't affor heat, can cause them to not beable to get food or go to a doctor becaue of the cost of fuel. Do you not realize that or do you not care? Is power that important?
Are YOU willing to forgo heat this winter, air condition the rest of the summer, give up driving? How many miles do you drive each year, what kind of mileage do you get? Or does your group furnish those things for you?
There is a famous footage of grouse strutting on their old strutting grounds on the Jackson Hole runway while a jet is taking off. Ranches help grouse. The fertilize and churn the ground in pastures and also on public land. The first grouse I ever photographed was lying on my belly in my uncle's yard above Lost Cabin. Housing developments do not help them, but when ranchers are run out of business they have no alternative except to sell.
You are right Craig,we cannot vaccinate, but trying to eliminate mosquitos seems like a good idea as far as WNV is concerned, on the other hand someone would want to reintroduce them to keep the ecosystem intact. The huge numbers of crows, ravens magpies, hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, bobcats are taking a toll on them, but that is good becaue we need predators right? I think reasonable laws would let nature take care of itself, but we have single species advocates who are throwing everything out of whack. IMHO
I have grown up around these commical and not very bright birds, they are a joy to watch, it would be a shame to not have them around. Sage grouse are pretty much not afraid of anything except what eats them and people and vehicles do not seem to bother them. Consider the eagle they will build a nest right next to railroad tracks and their young will do the same, go figure. We had huge numbers of sage grouse back in the days of 10-80 and very few coyotes. I am more inclined to believe that West Nile, coyotes and illegal immigration hurt the sage grouse population way more than energy developement and coyotes are at the top of that list. Figure out a way to kill mosquitos and coyotes with out affecting other species and our sage grouse will recover.
Comment By justin, 8-11-08Maion, you wrote:
"I'm not a researcher,but it does seem to me that going to the area where there are rigs and birds and watching them there might be a little more accurate."
Ever heard of a control group? Obviously, you aren't a researcher.
"Creating falsely elevated fuel prices by preventing drilling can cause folks to freeze to death becaue they can't affor heat, can cause them to not beable to get food or go to a doctor becaue of the cost of fuel."
Your argument is a fallacy. You don't know this. People have dealt with rising gas prices for a good while now. Not to mention that since natural gas is traded on a global market, it is fungible. No net impact on prices.
As far as the sage grouse goes, I view it as an important indicator species. We all know we're destroying sagebrush. We'll be left with millions of acres of cheatgrass that goes up in flames on a two, three year cycle. Likely we'll be paying more for fire suppression as well. And we may be seeing ranchers with more cows starving in the winter.
Protecting the sage grouse is protecting it's ecosystem which many depend on.
I have no problem at all with protecting sage grouse, but my oproblem is that what is harming the grouse is a couple of things enviros don't want to deal with, predators (they think more is better) and disease. In medicine the control group is not exposed to what is being tested, but the test group is. In the case of the grouse apprently the test group is getting the noise they hope will be most effective for the results they want.
A couple of years ago I noticed guys building little pens in the meadow by the Norris picnic grounds in Yellowstoen, since they seemed too small for any animal to be kept in and I didn't see a plant in them, I asked the guys what they pens were for. Tehy said they were test areas to see the effect of buffalo urine versus elk urine on the grass. Teh question that immediately popped into my mind and out of my mouth was how do they get the elk and buffs to wee in the containers. They said Oh, they don't do that, they have a lab make up the urine & send it to them. Now I have no idea what they were trying to prove, but I'd bet they did as long as they could use cutom manufactured "urine". So no I am not too impressed with a lot of the "research" that goes on. It brings in grant money and "proves" whatever someone wants proved.
I don't know where you live Justine, but I can tell you that folks will freeze to death if they cannot afford to stay warm. Is getting rid of energy producers worth that?
Justin: Give us the benefit of your vast training in science, and tell Marion what the scientific proof of "indicator species" is. Recite the studies, the controls, the proofs, the false positives, for the use of "indicator species" in science. Or is that political science you were referring to?
My other question how long were you a FEMA worker for Brown? I just love your humanistic opinions, the "let them eat cake" philosophy that energy cost and availability by income class is not an impediment to accessing food, shelter, and health care. What will you do when the trust fund runs dry? The government teat is not that provident.
This is yet another reason to phase out the Bureau of livestock and mining (BLM) and transfer their lands to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Comment By Marion, 8-11-08Oh yeah, we really need the FWS in charge of stuff, they can't even manage to present a defense of not increasing wolves when they are already 7-10 x what was originally agreed to.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/grousing_around/C530/L37/