Sage grouse will be Salazar's first test
| Share |
Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar's first test will come with his decision whether to list or not to list the sage grouse as threatened or endangered.
The bird is the canary in the coal mine of the health of millions of acres of sagebrush steppe habitat across 11 western states. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must decide by May whether to list the bird after a decision by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Boise in a case filed on behalf of the Western Watersheds Project.
If the sage grouse is listed it could have the same kind of impact on public land ranching that the listing of the spotted owl had on logging in the Pacific Northwest's old-growth forests in the late 1980s. It also could limit the development of wind, geothermal and solar energy across the western deserts and affect utility transmission line connections to these inherently widespread alternative energy developments.
Scientists said in 2004 the decision could have gone both ways. Now with west Nile virus killing thousands of grouse, the Bush Administration’s rapid oil and gas development and fires destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, many environmentalists believe the agency will have no choice but to list.
If that happens, Salazar will earn his keep finding solutions and keeping western rural voters from bolting to the Republican Party.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo- Rocky Barker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Dude, THAT'S IT??? Call God, start the Apocalypse.
----------
The lost and the damned will teach you still. Will you listen?
Fire has existed for eons,
Fire has existed for eons, if the sage grouse can't handle range fire then maybe it will go the way of the dodo bird. Oil & gas develoment is a pretty small footrprint in terms of total habitat. As bad as the Bush administration has been they didn't cause west nile or fires. And isn't this ironic that enviros will shut down the very land that would be useful for alternative energy? Not to mention their insane opposition to nuclear. I don't see how you can oppose everything including humans and be taken seriously. Shutting down millions of acres in 11 western states will no doubt be the last straw. Talk about overreaching.
Problem is that many fires
Problem is that many fires these day aren't naturally caused, add that to the fact that many invasive (and very combustible) weeds that exist today in the range make range fires many times more intense and destructive to the landscape.
B_I_R_D_S not B_Y_R_D_S
----------
The lost and the damned will teach you still. Will you listen?
Sage grouse did handle range
Sage grouse did handle range fires for eons. For whatever reason (cheat grass & climate change) the fires of today are larger and more frequent than before. Also it doesn't matter whether the Bush administration caused any of it, the effect on sage grouse remains the same and the law requires listing and action to protect sage grouse. Protecting sage grouse won't require "shutting down" millions of acres to energy development. It will require a level of concern for wildlife that's been lacking.
the fires of today are larger and more frequent than before
How do we know what fires were like thousands or even hundreds of years ago? Just curious.
As far as listing goes, without some changes in water use (particularly in the lost river basin) our efforts will be fruitless. Some how we must convince water users that mitigation is more cost effective than litigation. Our legislators need to look at grants to farmers to convince them to shift from traditional crops to less water intensive crops. Imagine the loss in tax revenue if more and more farmers are forced to curtail water use or suspend irrigation all together. If we don't do something on the front end, then east coast environmentalist will force our hand, and that will result in legally mandated minimum flows regardless of snow pack and in the closure of huge areas to alternative energy sources.
Building wind mills in the Idaho desert between Craters and Blackfoot with the required roads and power lines would have no more effect on our wildlife than the Alaska pipeline had on the caribou. But we have to keep in mind that most people live in high population areas where a square mile encompasses hundreds of homes and have no idea what a small foot print a square mile is out here.
Fire is less frequent and more destructive
Mikel:
Much of my own research has focused on landscape fire history. During historical time we can document fire frequency and extent via written eyewitness accounts, newspaper articles, aerial photographs, maps, and similar methods.
During precontact time we can reconstruct fire histories via anthropological and archaeological evidence, vegetation patterns, tree rings, carbon sediments, and pollen analysis -- NOT an exact science, but informative!
What we have learned is that Indians regularly fired the landscape for a wide variety of purposes for hundreds and thousands of years, and that that process favored forbs and grasses over conifers and other woody trees and shrubs over vast areas of North America. Regular and systematic gathering of firewood and other fuels helped regulate the "intensity" and "severity" of these events.
The Let-it-Burn policies and practices of today are unprecedented in human history. Their relative destructiveness is well documented. Air pollution, burned homes, increased sedimentation, scarred landscapes, ruined timber, firefighter injuries and mortality,and dead wildlife are all confirmed evidence of these events.
Preliminary findings of an wildfire economic study in which I am participating show a cost-plus-loss multiplier of 10-40 times the USFS "fire suppression" budget -- which has escalated dramatically over the past 20 years. That is, for every $billion spent by the USFS every year to "fight fires," the US taxpayer loses $10 to $40 billion in resources.
Not a pretty picture, and it has nothing to do with Global Warming.
LostRiver:
As with most wildlife, the limiting factor for quail is probably the presence (or absence) and abundance of food and predators, not "habitat."
You might want to become familiar with the works of Dr. Charles Kay on this issue. The certainty of your misstatements is troublesome.
The certainty of Dr. Charles
The certainty of Dr. Charles Kay's misstatements is troublesome.
Habitat?
Bob,
Where does wildlife get food? Good habitat has the plant foods which wildlife need as well as shelter for protection from predators.
On the one hand you cite Indian burning having produced forbs and grasses and then say that current day wildland fire policy is unprecedented in human history. How was Indian burning that different from "Let-it-Burn"? Indians set fires, they didn't have to worry about putting them out. Do you think that there were enough Indians gathering firewood in the Western US to have made any difference in fire frequency and intensity? I find that hard to believe. The biggest fires in current day Idaho are brush fires, not forest fires and there are few if any "Let-it-Burn" fires in southern Idaho. So why are wildfires bigger and more frequent? Answer- cheat grass. Why is there so much more post-fire cheat grass in the last quarter century?
I am familiar with Kay's words on this issue, I just don't agree. How's that for certainty? Oh yea, just what misstatements do you mean?
Food?
LostRiver:
1) Spotted owls are hand-fed mice by college researchers, for example. Got pet? Who feeds them? Their habitat?
2) Let-It-Burn fires are ignited by lightning whenever and wherever; Indians did their own ignitions when and where they wanted to. And a lot more frequently. There are other differences, too. Read Kat Anderson and Robert Boyd to get a clue.
3) Yes, there were more than enough Indians in the western US gathering firewood to make a difference in landscape fire intensity. Remember that frequently-set broadcast burns removes most of the dead wood from the landscape in the first place. I believe you don't believe it.
4) What do you mean"biggest?" I did a lot of reforestation work on the Sundance Burn. Was it "big?"
5) "Answer -- cheat grass" doesn't deserve a response, unless you were going for laughs.
6) Are you familiar with Kay's research, or just his "words?" Which ones don't you agree with? All of them?
7) Mostly your numerous misstatements of fact. I believe that your opinions and beliefs are correctly stated.
Dr. Charles Kay has an
Dr. Charles Kay has an agenda and that is what drives his research and the conclusions he makes.
He does bad science.
There's a reason he works in
There's a reason he works in the political science department.
http://www.usu.edu/polisci/faculty/kay.htm
Buffaloed is half right
Buffaloed:
Yes, Dr. Kay has biases (like every other biped on the planet), and yes, he is employed in the political science department at Utah State University.
However, he does excellent scientific work. He can also readily differentiate between his findings and his opinions, which seems difficult for many of his peers.
ALL scientists (not just Kay)perform research that plays to their "agenda." See James Hansen or Jane Lubchenko for some excellent examples. Why would anyone do work in which they have no personal interest?
When a scientist says that they are "totally objective," don't buy a bridge from them.