Western Sage Grouse
- Thread starter HighDesertSage
- Start date
Hmmmm. Not that I find Fox or CNN to be valid news sources, but when you look at the big picture over the last many years, this is an expected outcome.
People have been pointing toward the impacts O&G has had on sage grouse. There is a lot of science that points that way. And, there is some science that points toward other contributing factors.
The point I find interesting is not the science debate; rather how the industry pretty much stayed disengaged for over a decade. Back when much of this sage grouse research was ballooning, the industry relied on the Cheney-Bush connection and the "oil independence" facade as their charge to go forward without engaging in the discussion about what their activities are doing to the landscape and the wildlife living there.
Now, they find themselves in a pickle. Reading that little article represents a snap shot of what the response has been.
Note, nothing about how they want to work with agencies to adjust/mitigate their impacts to the landscape. Nothing about how they can do things differently, albeit at slightly higher costs. Just a lot of talk about mounting a public media campaign to allow them to continue doing things as they always have.
I'm not smart enough to determine if the science supports the position that O&G activities are a big contributor to the plight of sage grouse. I read enough to see that people a lot smarter than me have made that case with some rather compelling evidence.
Yet, this entire game plan has little to do with science or biology. This is part of the game plan laid out a long time ago that is nothing more than a pure business decision based on risk assessment and impacts to shareholder value; nothing more, nothing less.
A decade ago, the O&G industry was faced with mounting evidence that sage grouse were being impacted. The business decision flow chart at that time had two paths - 1) Ignore the mounting evidence and prepare for the costs of political and media campaigns to win a public opinion battle, or 2) Engage with those who are bringing forth the issue, adjust activities on the ground to lessen impacts, spend some money on mitigation, etc.
Some bean counters have made the decision that the bottom line looks better with option 1. That Option 1 will result in less cost than Option 2, and therefore is a better return to shareholders.
What you see with this report, and what will be many more to follow, is an industry effort based on the fact that many years ago, they looked at their options and picked Option 1. Now, they are seeing they probably underestimated the business risk of Option 1, especially the risk that a listing of sage grouse will have huge impacts on their activities
A lot of this could have been prevented. I suspect if the industry had engaged the states agencies and the USFWS at the time evidence was provided, there is a very good chance we would not be this close to listing of sage grouse.
I laugh, and maybe I should frown, when I hear the industry talk about the jobs and local economies. They don't care about that. Or, at least they didn't care about that aspect when they made this bad risk assessment.
They are correct, there are a lot of jobs at stake. Local economies will be impacted. Yet, when they chose Option 1, they completely disregarded the interests of their employees who do this dirty dangerous work. They completely disregarded the local economies and how they would be impacted by the listing of sage grouse. They were playing poker with the other guy's (shareholders, employees, and local businesses) money.
If I was dependent on the O&G for my income, which I am not, I would be asking questions of the O&G industry as to why they let this get to the point it is. Some bean counter, some know-it-all risk assessor in the industry, talked the brass into playing poker with those jobs and those local economies, by making Option 1 their chosen path. Now, they find themselves in a pickle and they are asking the public, their employees, the local business, to come to their rescue.
Not surprised. That is the way things work in the big business world. You assess risks. You hope you assess correctly. If you don't assess correctly, you save YOUR job, and YOUR ass, by convincing Congress and the American public that it is not the bad business decision/risk assessment you made, rather that you are being picked on by "the Feds."
You spend many millions to try make that case. If you win, you do not have to alter your impacts to the landscape and your shareholders continue to enjoy the benefits. You probably get a huge bonus, probably some promotions, maybe even start a consulting company. The landscape alterations continue, maybe accelerate, and nothing is done to address what might be the cause for sage grouse decline.
If you lose, your shareholders blame it on "The Feds," your employees pay for your bad decision with their jobs, and local merchants are left holding the bag. And you who made the bad risk assessment keep your job, maybe even get a raise or a promotion. You might even become the champion of some fringe cause focused on those "Damn Feds."
Such is the manner in which America now converts science topics and business risk assessment to public opinions and political games. Nothing more, nothing less.
Carry on .......
People have been pointing toward the impacts O&G has had on sage grouse. There is a lot of science that points that way. And, there is some science that points toward other contributing factors.
The point I find interesting is not the science debate; rather how the industry pretty much stayed disengaged for over a decade. Back when much of this sage grouse research was ballooning, the industry relied on the Cheney-Bush connection and the "oil independence" facade as their charge to go forward without engaging in the discussion about what their activities are doing to the landscape and the wildlife living there.
Now, they find themselves in a pickle. Reading that little article represents a snap shot of what the response has been.
Note, nothing about how they want to work with agencies to adjust/mitigate their impacts to the landscape. Nothing about how they can do things differently, albeit at slightly higher costs. Just a lot of talk about mounting a public media campaign to allow them to continue doing things as they always have.
I'm not smart enough to determine if the science supports the position that O&G activities are a big contributor to the plight of sage grouse. I read enough to see that people a lot smarter than me have made that case with some rather compelling evidence.
Yet, this entire game plan has little to do with science or biology. This is part of the game plan laid out a long time ago that is nothing more than a pure business decision based on risk assessment and impacts to shareholder value; nothing more, nothing less.
A decade ago, the O&G industry was faced with mounting evidence that sage grouse were being impacted. The business decision flow chart at that time had two paths - 1) Ignore the mounting evidence and prepare for the costs of political and media campaigns to win a public opinion battle, or 2) Engage with those who are bringing forth the issue, adjust activities on the ground to lessen impacts, spend some money on mitigation, etc.
Some bean counters have made the decision that the bottom line looks better with option 1. That Option 1 will result in less cost than Option 2, and therefore is a better return to shareholders.
What you see with this report, and what will be many more to follow, is an industry effort based on the fact that many years ago, they looked at their options and picked Option 1. Now, they are seeing they probably underestimated the business risk of Option 1, especially the risk that a listing of sage grouse will have huge impacts on their activities
A lot of this could have been prevented. I suspect if the industry had engaged the states agencies and the USFWS at the time evidence was provided, there is a very good chance we would not be this close to listing of sage grouse.
I laugh, and maybe I should frown, when I hear the industry talk about the jobs and local economies. They don't care about that. Or, at least they didn't care about that aspect when they made this bad risk assessment.
They are correct, there are a lot of jobs at stake. Local economies will be impacted. Yet, when they chose Option 1, they completely disregarded the interests of their employees who do this dirty dangerous work. They completely disregarded the local economies and how they would be impacted by the listing of sage grouse. They were playing poker with the other guy's (shareholders, employees, and local businesses) money.
If I was dependent on the O&G for my income, which I am not, I would be asking questions of the O&G industry as to why they let this get to the point it is. Some bean counter, some know-it-all risk assessor in the industry, talked the brass into playing poker with those jobs and those local economies, by making Option 1 their chosen path. Now, they find themselves in a pickle and they are asking the public, their employees, the local business, to come to their rescue.
Not surprised. That is the way things work in the big business world. You assess risks. You hope you assess correctly. If you don't assess correctly, you save YOUR job, and YOUR ass, by convincing Congress and the American public that it is not the bad business decision/risk assessment you made, rather that you are being picked on by "the Feds."
You spend many millions to try make that case. If you win, you do not have to alter your impacts to the landscape and your shareholders continue to enjoy the benefits. You probably get a huge bonus, probably some promotions, maybe even start a consulting company. The landscape alterations continue, maybe accelerate, and nothing is done to address what might be the cause for sage grouse decline.
If you lose, your shareholders blame it on "The Feds," your employees pay for your bad decision with their jobs, and local merchants are left holding the bag. And you who made the bad risk assessment keep your job, maybe even get a raise or a promotion. You might even become the champion of some fringe cause focused on those "Damn Feds."
Such is the manner in which America now converts science topics and business risk assessment to public opinions and political games. Nothing more, nothing less.
Carry on .......
Once again, I'm with Big Fin.
This is a shill's game to distract and denounce real science, often times funded by the industry. $10 says they trot out SCI as being part of their effort. SCI's lobbyist came from the Western Energy Alliance, then known as IPAMS.
http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2014/08/facts-not-opinion-should-drive-sage.html
This is a shill's game to distract and denounce real science, often times funded by the industry. $10 says they trot out SCI as being part of their effort. SCI's lobbyist came from the Western Energy Alliance, then known as IPAMS.
http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2014/08/facts-not-opinion-should-drive-sage.html
An article of an O&G company doing something to help the impact their activities are having on the landscape. In the process acquiring a lot of goodwill for their company and their industry.
http://trib.com/business/energy/new...cle_5239e527-c270-561c-923d-014fa4a7b486.html
http://trib.com/business/energy/new...cle_5239e527-c270-561c-923d-014fa4a7b486.html
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Big Fin,
You make some compelling points. I do not and have not worked in the O&G industry but rather in the western coal mining industry. I cannot speak intelligently as to what path the O&G folks took over a decade ago as you state. I can speak intelligently as to the path that the coal companies I have worked for over the last 18 years have taken. During my time in the coal business, I have worked for three separate coal companies operating surface coal mines in Wyoming, Colorado and Montana. Not one of those companies chose the path you say the O&G companies chose a decade ago. Each of these companies saw the evidence you speak of regarding impacts energy development may have on sage grouse populations. All three of these companies did in fact make a calculated risk assessment to determine the path forward. All three of these companies made the choice to investigate what the impacts are and how can we best mitigate those impacts.
You state that there is a good chance that listing would not have been this close if the O&G industry would have engaged the state and federal agencies when they saw this evidence. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that all three companies I have worked for did exactly what you say should have been done. Some of this engagement is required. Some is voluntary. Beginning in 2002 the mine I worked at engaged the BLM, Colorado DOW, University of Idaho, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, other area businesses and local landowners to conduct research on mine owned and managed land regarding mitigation efforts on reclaimed land. This was not a mandated activity but rather an attempt by all involved to see if the mines sage grouse mitigation efforts were working and if not what could be done differently. The mine provided staff, equipment, housing, land access, historical monitoring data and expert wildlife monitoring consultants. The results of this research were some successes and some failures. More unknowns than anything.
Every mine I have worked at has spent, and continues to spend, millions annually to mitigate the effects of surface disturbance on wildlife. Not only for the protection of sage grouse, but mule deer, elk, antelope, pygmy cottontails, crows, raptors, the list goes on and on. Once again most of this is required but not all. I can’t say for certain if anyone would be doing all of this if it was not required but I think I know the answer to that. Regardless the effort, time, money, manpower and resources are dedicated to these efforts. The mine I currently work at has a full time environmental staff equal to the engineering staff. This is the norm for our industry. On top of that we employee experts in the fields of wildlife monitoring and mitigation and vegetation experts to help us make the correct choices regarding reclamation and mitigation. This work is done in collaboration with state and federal agencies. Some state agencies monitor compliance and mitigation efforts on a monthly basis. We would be foolish to simply brush these obligations off as a mere nuisance. The approach has been and will always be how we can get the best outcome for the effort. In a typical year we will spend 10% of our total operating budget on reclamation and disturbance mitigation activities. There are only two activities that we spend more on, Overburden removal and mining coal. And mining coal is not ahead by much. This effort is not new. It has been consistent over at least my 18 years in this business.
The result of all these efforts is, maybe mining is contributing to the decline, maybe not.
I would be naïve to believe that it has no affect. But I don’t know to what degree. I am not certain anyone does. This is where the rub comes in. Decisions could potentially be made that have a huge impact on an industry without compelling evidence that a corresponding benefit would be achieved.
Once again I cannot speak to what the O&G folks have done but I find it hard to believe that they have had a much different approach over the years. However, each company I have worked for has taken the matter of sage grouse populations seriously and put money, sweat and knowledge to work to try to find an answer to the problem all the while working closely with state and federal agencies. I find it hard to believe that I just got lucky when I chose what industry and companies to work for. The point of all this is not to try to get a pat on the back for trying to solve the problem but rather make people aware of the efforts industry has made over the years to address this problem. All too often American Society has the viewpoint that industry is just out to rape and pillage. The energy industry has helped to build this reputation. However it would be incorrect to assume that the energy industry has simply decided to spend its money on a PR campaign in hopes of pointing the finger at “The Feds”. All the while disregarding the employees that make our industry profitable. Do you run your business without regard to your employees? Why would you assume the O&G businesses do?
My two cents. Carry on…
You make some compelling points. I do not and have not worked in the O&G industry but rather in the western coal mining industry. I cannot speak intelligently as to what path the O&G folks took over a decade ago as you state. I can speak intelligently as to the path that the coal companies I have worked for over the last 18 years have taken. During my time in the coal business, I have worked for three separate coal companies operating surface coal mines in Wyoming, Colorado and Montana. Not one of those companies chose the path you say the O&G companies chose a decade ago. Each of these companies saw the evidence you speak of regarding impacts energy development may have on sage grouse populations. All three of these companies did in fact make a calculated risk assessment to determine the path forward. All three of these companies made the choice to investigate what the impacts are and how can we best mitigate those impacts.
You state that there is a good chance that listing would not have been this close if the O&G industry would have engaged the state and federal agencies when they saw this evidence. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that all three companies I have worked for did exactly what you say should have been done. Some of this engagement is required. Some is voluntary. Beginning in 2002 the mine I worked at engaged the BLM, Colorado DOW, University of Idaho, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, other area businesses and local landowners to conduct research on mine owned and managed land regarding mitigation efforts on reclaimed land. This was not a mandated activity but rather an attempt by all involved to see if the mines sage grouse mitigation efforts were working and if not what could be done differently. The mine provided staff, equipment, housing, land access, historical monitoring data and expert wildlife monitoring consultants. The results of this research were some successes and some failures. More unknowns than anything.
Every mine I have worked at has spent, and continues to spend, millions annually to mitigate the effects of surface disturbance on wildlife. Not only for the protection of sage grouse, but mule deer, elk, antelope, pygmy cottontails, crows, raptors, the list goes on and on. Once again most of this is required but not all. I can’t say for certain if anyone would be doing all of this if it was not required but I think I know the answer to that. Regardless the effort, time, money, manpower and resources are dedicated to these efforts. The mine I currently work at has a full time environmental staff equal to the engineering staff. This is the norm for our industry. On top of that we employee experts in the fields of wildlife monitoring and mitigation and vegetation experts to help us make the correct choices regarding reclamation and mitigation. This work is done in collaboration with state and federal agencies. Some state agencies monitor compliance and mitigation efforts on a monthly basis. We would be foolish to simply brush these obligations off as a mere nuisance. The approach has been and will always be how we can get the best outcome for the effort. In a typical year we will spend 10% of our total operating budget on reclamation and disturbance mitigation activities. There are only two activities that we spend more on, Overburden removal and mining coal. And mining coal is not ahead by much. This effort is not new. It has been consistent over at least my 18 years in this business.
The result of all these efforts is, maybe mining is contributing to the decline, maybe not.
I would be naïve to believe that it has no affect. But I don’t know to what degree. I am not certain anyone does. This is where the rub comes in. Decisions could potentially be made that have a huge impact on an industry without compelling evidence that a corresponding benefit would be achieved.
Once again I cannot speak to what the O&G folks have done but I find it hard to believe that they have had a much different approach over the years. However, each company I have worked for has taken the matter of sage grouse populations seriously and put money, sweat and knowledge to work to try to find an answer to the problem all the while working closely with state and federal agencies. I find it hard to believe that I just got lucky when I chose what industry and companies to work for. The point of all this is not to try to get a pat on the back for trying to solve the problem but rather make people aware of the efforts industry has made over the years to address this problem. All too often American Society has the viewpoint that industry is just out to rape and pillage. The energy industry has helped to build this reputation. However it would be incorrect to assume that the energy industry has simply decided to spend its money on a PR campaign in hopes of pointing the finger at “The Feds”. All the while disregarding the employees that make our industry profitable. Do you run your business without regard to your employees? Why would you assume the O&G businesses do?
My two cents. Carry on…
mdunc8
Well-known member
I'm by no means an expert, but the scales at which O&G and coal affect the surrounding landscape (ignoring climate change and the occasional coal car ending up in a river) are much different. O&G development is much more widespread and growing rapidly in certain areas. While there is a lot of coal mining going on, the extent of such operations are typically much more localized. The effects of coal mines are much more direct than O&G, which makes it easier for people to pin things on the coal industry than O&G. Now that O&G has introduced the fracking element, the scale of their effects is potentially scary big and thus expensive to mitigate (or even determine). I would guess those differences play an important role in the approaches taken for dealing with environmental issues by each industry.
Last edited:
Mule, all good stuff. Gives me more to think about.
From a person example, I have family who works for Barrick Gold in Nevada. I am impressed with how much they do to mitigate their impacts. Ask the local NDOW who their best corporate partner is, and most often the answer is "Barrick Gold." I use that as an example I personally have asked about, and know of, to state that it is not the black and white, good guys and bad guys, as many would like to paint.
The Anadarko example cited in the Casper-Tribune I posted is another good example of what you speak. It shows that often, the individual companies can act in a different manner than the political lobbying organizations that claim to speak for an industry.
Maybe others feel different, but it seems to me that a factor endemic to the resource industries is that there is a far higher scrutiny of how impacts are affecting the landscape than there was 20 years ago. From my chair, it seems the O&G industry lobbyists have convinced enough people in the industry that their trade association, or lobbying group, or whatever you want to call it, should approach this as a PR issue, not a science/biology issue. I hope I am wrong on that, but from all I see and the way my mind processes it, that is the conclusion I have drawn.
I'm not anti-O&G. Hell, I use it to heat my house, drive my vehicles, and millions of products from that. I think it can be done better, at little increase in cost when measured against the total cost to produce energy. If markets/consumers of energy are not willing to pay the very small increase wildlife/landscape/water-friendly activities may impose, we have to ask, "Is it fair to shift those impacts/costs to local landscapes and local communities who will have to bear those costs in the long run?"
Socializing these impact/costs locally and privatizing the profits corporately is not something any free market supporter would agree to. I have no doubt, that some day, this boom will dry up, like every boom in history. Maybe not in my lifetime. And when it is over, who is there to clean up the mess and try to repair the landscapes? The locals. The more we cut corners today to try save cost at the pump, the bigger the challenge locals will be faced with when the wells go dry.
I think we as consumers of energy should pay all the costs for the energy we consume. It would force us to be more diligent in our use of energy. It would ease some of the burdens local communities will pay when this boom is over and the jobs move on to the next big boom, leaving behind a trash heap of impacts for the locals to deal with. None of that is new to this industry or unique to the boom/bust cycles of resource extraction.
I struggle with a public relations campaign that is as intellectually dishonest as what the O&G industry rolls out when the heat is on them. They put up the facade of energy independence, when we all know that in a global economy, trading resources to/from places where resources are abundant/scarce, that energy independence is really not the focus of these efforts. If it was about energy independence and how that impacts our national security we would have a coherent government policy on energy, and we don't.
When that fails, they roll out the "Prices at the pump" will be much higher. Right (sarcasm). That makes for good sound bites, but when you look at all the factors impacting pump prices, the teeny tiny portion that would be required to participate in wildlife friendly extraction is hardly a rounding error in the doughnut budget for most of these operations. Hard to take those lobbying groups serious, when they make those type of statements as excuses to not employ more local-friendly activities.
When reasonable regulations are called for to protect public interests in water quality, surface disturbance, invasive weds, etc., the industry lobbyist go on the fight to keep such standard from being put in place. Again, hard to take seriously their claim of being concerned about the landscape, water, and wildlife seriously, under such lobbying efforts.
I don't blame the industry lobby groups for doing what they do. That is what they get paid to do.
I just disagree with the shallowness of the arguments they make. I am not buying what they are selling, or at least not based on the sales pitches the lobby groups make as to why we should listen to them on landscape impacts, water quality, etc., of in this case, sage grouse.
Do I think individual companies have a vested interest in their employees? Yes, I do.
Do I think some individual companies have a different mode of operation than the "Buy our way to get our way" mind set their DC lobby groups have? Yes, I do.
Do I think most the people working in the O&G industry are good folks and have a concern about the landscapes? Yes, I do.
Do I think that lobbying groups have the interest of employees, locals, and the landscapes at heart? Nope, not for an instance.
From a person example, I have family who works for Barrick Gold in Nevada. I am impressed with how much they do to mitigate their impacts. Ask the local NDOW who their best corporate partner is, and most often the answer is "Barrick Gold." I use that as an example I personally have asked about, and know of, to state that it is not the black and white, good guys and bad guys, as many would like to paint.
The Anadarko example cited in the Casper-Tribune I posted is another good example of what you speak. It shows that often, the individual companies can act in a different manner than the political lobbying organizations that claim to speak for an industry.
Maybe others feel different, but it seems to me that a factor endemic to the resource industries is that there is a far higher scrutiny of how impacts are affecting the landscape than there was 20 years ago. From my chair, it seems the O&G industry lobbyists have convinced enough people in the industry that their trade association, or lobbying group, or whatever you want to call it, should approach this as a PR issue, not a science/biology issue. I hope I am wrong on that, but from all I see and the way my mind processes it, that is the conclusion I have drawn.
I'm not anti-O&G. Hell, I use it to heat my house, drive my vehicles, and millions of products from that. I think it can be done better, at little increase in cost when measured against the total cost to produce energy. If markets/consumers of energy are not willing to pay the very small increase wildlife/landscape/water-friendly activities may impose, we have to ask, "Is it fair to shift those impacts/costs to local landscapes and local communities who will have to bear those costs in the long run?"
Socializing these impact/costs locally and privatizing the profits corporately is not something any free market supporter would agree to. I have no doubt, that some day, this boom will dry up, like every boom in history. Maybe not in my lifetime. And when it is over, who is there to clean up the mess and try to repair the landscapes? The locals. The more we cut corners today to try save cost at the pump, the bigger the challenge locals will be faced with when the wells go dry.
I think we as consumers of energy should pay all the costs for the energy we consume. It would force us to be more diligent in our use of energy. It would ease some of the burdens local communities will pay when this boom is over and the jobs move on to the next big boom, leaving behind a trash heap of impacts for the locals to deal with. None of that is new to this industry or unique to the boom/bust cycles of resource extraction.
I struggle with a public relations campaign that is as intellectually dishonest as what the O&G industry rolls out when the heat is on them. They put up the facade of energy independence, when we all know that in a global economy, trading resources to/from places where resources are abundant/scarce, that energy independence is really not the focus of these efforts. If it was about energy independence and how that impacts our national security we would have a coherent government policy on energy, and we don't.
When that fails, they roll out the "Prices at the pump" will be much higher. Right (sarcasm). That makes for good sound bites, but when you look at all the factors impacting pump prices, the teeny tiny portion that would be required to participate in wildlife friendly extraction is hardly a rounding error in the doughnut budget for most of these operations. Hard to take those lobbying groups serious, when they make those type of statements as excuses to not employ more local-friendly activities.
When reasonable regulations are called for to protect public interests in water quality, surface disturbance, invasive weds, etc., the industry lobbyist go on the fight to keep such standard from being put in place. Again, hard to take seriously their claim of being concerned about the landscape, water, and wildlife seriously, under such lobbying efforts.
I don't blame the industry lobby groups for doing what they do. That is what they get paid to do.
I just disagree with the shallowness of the arguments they make. I am not buying what they are selling, or at least not based on the sales pitches the lobby groups make as to why we should listen to them on landscape impacts, water quality, etc., of in this case, sage grouse.
Do I think individual companies have a vested interest in their employees? Yes, I do.
Do I think some individual companies have a different mode of operation than the "Buy our way to get our way" mind set their DC lobby groups have? Yes, I do.
Do I think most the people working in the O&G industry are good folks and have a concern about the landscapes? Yes, I do.
Do I think that lobbying groups have the interest of employees, locals, and the landscapes at heart? Nope, not for an instance.
idelkhntr
New member
I live in eastern Idaho in an area that is prime Sage Grouse habitat. In fact, I live less than five miles from the US Sheep Experiment Station. Currently ARS has proposed to close the Sheep Station for economic reasons. One fact is that the ARS plan involves relocating employees to other facilities and moving the research that is done here to Clay Center, Nebraska. Thus the monies spent in Idaho will be spent somewhere else so the economic reason holds no water. Additionally, research at the Sheep Station has been done for nearly fifty years on the impacts of stock grazing on the Sage Grouse. Moving this research, or eliminating this will be a devastating blow to the Sage Grouse.
Listing of the Sage Grouse will have economic impacts felt by all Americans as part of the plan is to eliminate grazing of cattle and sheep during certain portions of the year to preserve the eggs and young Sage Grouse. Producers of cattle and sheep have been told that if listed, the ban on grazing would not only include public land, but private lands owned by producers. This would force producers to provide hay as a feed source for as many as five additional months or significantly reduce the number of animals they produce. Any thoughts on what that would do to the cost of beef purchased in stores? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Some groups think that we should import our food to preserve our lands. Do other countries have the same standards on the production of food as we do? I think not. What if we begin importing a majority of our food and depend on it coming from other countries. What is the easiest way to overtake a country? Cut off their food source. In my opinion this argument makes no sense.
Lastly, I know people that have lived in this country their entire lives. They were around when the Sage Grouse were in great abundance. If you ask them what is different now than then they will point to one simple thing that I never thought of. Birds of prey. Years ago, you never saw eagles or hawks in this area. Crows and ravens were scarce. Now, it is not uncommon to go for an afternoon drive and see dozens of eagles and hawks and hundreds of crows and ravens. Crows and ravens eat Sage Grouse eggs. Eagles and hawks do too as well as juvenile and adult Sage Grouse.
My opinion is not to eliminate birds of prey. My opinion is that research is vital to whether to list or not list any species. To eliminate the source of that research is ludicrous. To not have an open mind and look at all things that impact a specific species is also ludicrous.
Listing of the Sage Grouse will have economic impacts felt by all Americans as part of the plan is to eliminate grazing of cattle and sheep during certain portions of the year to preserve the eggs and young Sage Grouse. Producers of cattle and sheep have been told that if listed, the ban on grazing would not only include public land, but private lands owned by producers. This would force producers to provide hay as a feed source for as many as five additional months or significantly reduce the number of animals they produce. Any thoughts on what that would do to the cost of beef purchased in stores? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Some groups think that we should import our food to preserve our lands. Do other countries have the same standards on the production of food as we do? I think not. What if we begin importing a majority of our food and depend on it coming from other countries. What is the easiest way to overtake a country? Cut off their food source. In my opinion this argument makes no sense.
Lastly, I know people that have lived in this country their entire lives. They were around when the Sage Grouse were in great abundance. If you ask them what is different now than then they will point to one simple thing that I never thought of. Birds of prey. Years ago, you never saw eagles or hawks in this area. Crows and ravens were scarce. Now, it is not uncommon to go for an afternoon drive and see dozens of eagles and hawks and hundreds of crows and ravens. Crows and ravens eat Sage Grouse eggs. Eagles and hawks do too as well as juvenile and adult Sage Grouse.
My opinion is not to eliminate birds of prey. My opinion is that research is vital to whether to list or not list any species. To eliminate the source of that research is ludicrous. To not have an open mind and look at all things that impact a specific species is also ludicrous.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,596
I have not read the article, but we have no OG going on here in our area, and sage grouse are not thriving....they are doing better here than in most areas though. I think that the reasons for the decline of the Sage Grouse are far more complex and intricate that even the "educated" don't know all the reasons why. Everything from West Nile/predators(winged and furred)to the weather playing a roll.
There are those against OG interests that blame them, there are those who point to "climate change"....so I guess that I will have to believe what my "lying eyes" are seeing, not what I am spoon fed by someone on the payroll for a special interest group.
There are those against OG interests that blame them, there are those who point to "climate change"....so I guess that I will have to believe what my "lying eyes" are seeing, not what I am spoon fed by someone on the payroll for a special interest group.
Eric,
Your lying eyes, Mac's comical email about Agenda 21, MT Petroleum Assn's war against hunters and the wildlife pimps at Big Game Forever aren't going to carry the day here. The science is pretty clear on Sage Grouse. While most folks don't want them listed, we also don't want Utah solutions to Montana problems. \
Sage Grouse aren't doing well. It's not difficult to see that. Furthermore, you can't tell the FWS what science to use in determining to list the grouse. You also can't turn in D- work on a sage grouse plan and expect it pass muster with a review panel.
The Garnder bill is DOA in the senate, even if the R's take it. If you want to keep grouse off the ESA, then drop the rhetoric and PR efforts and start working towards better regulations for O&G, increased funding for mitigation & conservation easements and rest-rotation grazing to help increase forb production.
Get busy fighting, or get out of the way.
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
http://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/news_releases/20140811_DataCall_release_FINAL.pdf
According to the press release there is a deadline of Sept. 30, 2015 for the service to determine whether the species is listed or not. Not a whole lot of time to fight for much except on the political side. The other side has it baked into the cake that listing is all but inevitable.
PR, mitigation and conservation efforts won't make much of difference with a looming deadline set by the courts.
Nemont
According to the press release there is a deadline of Sept. 30, 2015 for the service to determine whether the species is listed or not. Not a whole lot of time to fight for much except on the political side. The other side has it baked into the cake that listing is all but inevitable.
PR, mitigation and conservation efforts won't make much of difference with a looming deadline set by the courts.
Nemont
The things that matter are strong state plans and adequate funding for state and federal programs that will help conserve bird habitat.
This listing decision has already been delayed over 5 years. In that time, the energy industry has continued to seek exemptions from the same plans that would have been used to keep the bird off the Endangered Species list.
The reality is this: Sage Grouse numbers have declined rapidly over the last 20 years. We've known about it for just as long yet only now we hold out state management? It's all about the bottom line and nothing to do with actually saving the bird.
This listing decision has already been delayed over 5 years. In that time, the energy industry has continued to seek exemptions from the same plans that would have been used to keep the bird off the Endangered Species list.
The reality is this: Sage Grouse numbers have declined rapidly over the last 20 years. We've known about it for just as long yet only now we hold out state management? It's all about the bottom line and nothing to do with actually saving the bird.
double_a85
Member
While the Sage Grouse population may be in sharp decline, two weekends ago on the drive up at Fort Peck, I saw more Sage Grouse than I ever have. 55 miles of gravel road and those things, along with a lot of sharptails, were everywhere. The thing to point out about this particular area, is that there are no oil/gas development of any kind, just range/pasture land.
On a comical note, maybe the decline in population is the fact they will NOT get out of the way when your cruising 50 mph down a gravel road--- just stand there and look at ya while your laying on the brakes.
On a comical note, maybe the decline in population is the fact they will NOT get out of the way when your cruising 50 mph down a gravel road--- just stand there and look at ya while your laying on the brakes.
Nemont
Well-known member
I get all that, you said it is time to fight or get out of the way. What else can be done by 12/31/2014 that will make an appreciable difference to the final outcome? The courts have already ruled on a deadline because of the lack of a deadline before. I don't see another 5 year delay coming and I doubt that there will be anything in the science that says let's kick the can down the road.
Look at the press release the data required to make the decision has to be in by the end of this year.
The reality also is that there simply is not enough time to change much of anything in regards to the current status of the SG prior to the collection of the data for the looming deadline of Sept, 2015.
Nemont
For Montana and other Western States it means this:
Support plans that place the well being of the bird ahead of the self interest of the oil & gas industry and their "partners" SCI & BGF. Bullock (for example) will be releasing an executive order that will set up the state plan. If it's too light, then the fed won't adopt it and we get closer to a listing.
Oppose efforts to forestall a listing: Politically it might seem expedient, but in the end, it's not congress that will make the decision. It's the president and Sally Jewell.
Support efforts to place reasonable restrictions on Oil & Gas to keep them from drilling and operating in core areas during sensitive times of the year.
Etc,. There are a number of other options you can choose rather than the black hole of letting the bird slowly go extinct.
If, when we get down to it and the states have not done enough to keep the bird off the list, then so be it. States have had a decade to get it together and keep the bird from needing a listing. If they don't have the political will do it under their own auspices, then the Fed is only tool left.
As I said, there are only a few organizations seeking an immediate listing. Most I know of are working to ensure that the plans in MT and other states meet the requirements of the Fed.
Energy, Ag & Outfitters are going down a much different road: One that puts politics ahead of science. Their focus on predation and nothing else is a surefire way to get it listed in 2015. A measured, rational approach to reinstate most of the regulations that have been gifted away is a much better way to keep 'em off the ESA.
Nemont
Well-known member
That would be fine if all we have to do is restrict O&G development and everything is cool but there has not been an O&G boom in the core habitat for the entire time the SG has been declining. Seems like there are a lot of of other issues going on.
The listed reasons for the decline in SG numbers include West Nile Virus, loss of habitat and climate change. There is very little the state, or feds for that matter, can do about those.
If 2/3 of the SG habitat is on private lands how can the State force land owners to do much of anything? The State has already used ones of it's biggest sledge hammers in it's tool kit, restrict hunting of SG to just a few areas and shorten the season.
I don't want to see SG listed either but I don't see anything on the horizon that will put a stop to habitat loss on private lands or reduction in WNV unless there is a plan to drain wetlands and stock ponds. O&G can be regulated, but that is just a small part of the puzzle.
When you see headlines that say, "Sage Grouse may be Key to Who Gets Senate Majority" it seems like the political football has already been kicked.
I am a pessimism on this issue and I don't believe that there is a viable state plan that will get the funds it would need to show the Feds that Montana is doing all it can. In the current political environment it just seems like an impossible task.
Daines may lose some votes over this cosponsorship of the Gardner bill but he is still going to win that senate seat.
I just don't see who will lead the opposition out of the wilderness on this issue or where any trust can be built between the two sides.
Nemont
The listed reasons for the decline in SG numbers include West Nile Virus, loss of habitat and climate change. There is very little the state, or feds for that matter, can do about those.
If 2/3 of the SG habitat is on private lands how can the State force land owners to do much of anything? The State has already used ones of it's biggest sledge hammers in it's tool kit, restrict hunting of SG to just a few areas and shorten the season.
I don't want to see SG listed either but I don't see anything on the horizon that will put a stop to habitat loss on private lands or reduction in WNV unless there is a plan to drain wetlands and stock ponds. O&G can be regulated, but that is just a small part of the puzzle.
When you see headlines that say, "Sage Grouse may be Key to Who Gets Senate Majority" it seems like the political football has already been kicked.
I am a pessimism on this issue and I don't believe that there is a viable state plan that will get the funds it would need to show the Feds that Montana is doing all it can. In the current political environment it just seems like an impossible task.
Daines may lose some votes over this cosponsorship of the Gardner bill but he is still going to win that senate seat.
I just don't see who will lead the opposition out of the wilderness on this issue or where any trust can be built between the two sides.
Nemont
There is a recommendation in the Sage Grouse Advisory Council for $10 million for private land conservation at the state level. That would go towards the 60% of core SG habitat that is private land and while it's not enough to finish the job, it's enough to get rolling.
Loss of habitat due to land coming out of CRP, etc can be mitigated. West Nile is much trickier as it isoften times a by product of O&G development but is now gaining momentum. Places where we don't have West Nile or crop conversion are doing well (Big Hole, etc).
Places where we have ag conversion aren't. Kinda makes those cuts to CRP seem pretty stupid now.
The Fed has stepped up with funding through the Farm Bill, NRCS, etc to help mitigate. States are following suit, so that big piece of the puzzle is coming together. If the Legislature doesn't want to fund sage grouse conservation, then we can put the blame squarely on their shoulders.
FTR - I'm not talking about the election. Daines will do whatever he does and yes, he's going to be our senator.
It's up to Bullock to bring us out of the Wilderness, at least here.
Loss of habitat due to land coming out of CRP, etc can be mitigated. West Nile is much trickier as it isoften times a by product of O&G development but is now gaining momentum. Places where we don't have West Nile or crop conversion are doing well (Big Hole, etc).
Places where we have ag conversion aren't. Kinda makes those cuts to CRP seem pretty stupid now.
The Fed has stepped up with funding through the Farm Bill, NRCS, etc to help mitigate. States are following suit, so that big piece of the puzzle is coming together. If the Legislature doesn't want to fund sage grouse conservation, then we can put the blame squarely on their shoulders.
FTR - I'm not talking about the election. Daines will do whatever he does and yes, he's going to be our senator.
It's up to Bullock to bring us out of the Wilderness, at least here.
I'd love to see all that sheep station land converted to public land that is actually open to the public. I hunted around it for years, one of the funniest things I ever heard was speaking to an employee who told me he never saw pronghorn on their properties, within five minutes of him telling me that I saw 3 different bucks on sheep station land that I could not pursue due to the no trespassing signs. I'm not sure what research they are really doing in regards to sage grouse, but I would take any of it with a grain of salt.
I cannot recall reading any peer review publications from the sheep statton that were specific to sage grouse. However, many of the publications that have come from there were very well done in regards to grazing management affects on vegetation. Not too much of a stretch to apply that to sage grouse. I know many of the publications I cited in my research and later in NEPA documents were from there or a result of further work that was spawned by research conducted there. Below is a link to a paper that is a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://digitalcommons.library.arizo...Volume51/Number3/azu_jrm_v51_n3_293_300_m.pdf
In a quick scan of the article, I don't think I saw sage grouse mentioned. However, even a casual review of the article shows how that research could be pertinent to sage grouse.
