# Oil, Gas, and Deer



## ted (Oct 22, 2011)

There's an article on Field and Stream about how muleys deal -- more like don't deal -- with oil and gas rigs that I thought folks around here might be interested in. As someone who spends a fair bit of time rambling around the Uinta Basin (usually while I'm supposed to be visiting family in Vernal), I can't say that I'm surprised by the findings.

Makes me a little uneasy about the proposed oil and gas leases around Dinosaur (see the almost impossible to read map of parcels here). Even though my in-laws are small business owners in Vernal and hurting from the less than stellar economic situation there, some of my favorite hunting spots are just outside the monument.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

"Portions of the Sublette herd, which Sawyer studied, migrate from 18 to 80 miles each year to winter on the Pinedale Anticline, which provides just enough food for the animals to survive the winter." Field and Stream, internet version, June 2017.

This is an isolated event not to be confused with the whole of it. Areas of small critical habitat get hit the hardest, no doubt. Gas wells have been drilled and produced in the San Juan Basin, particularly the fabled units of 2B and 2C in NM since the 50's. Drought, mismanagement, and predation has had a greater affect on Mule Deer (in these areas) than a well with a plunger lift on it has. Many a time a nice buck has been shot from the edge of a well pad.

Horizontal and directional drilling has come a long way...


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> "Portions of the Sublette herd, which Sawyer studied, migrate from 18 to 80 miles each year to winter on the Pinedale Anticline, which provides just enough food for the animals to survive the winter." Field and Stream, internet version, June 2017.
> 
> This is an isolated event not to be confused with the whole of it. Areas of small critical habitat get hit the hardest, no doubt. Gas wells have been drilled and produced in the San Juan Basin, particularly the fabled units of 2B and 2C in NM since the 50's. Drought, mismanagement, and predation has had a greater affect on Mule Deer (in these areas) than a well with a plunger lift on it has. Many a time a nice buck has been shot from the edge of a well pad.
> 
> Horizontal and directional drilling has come a long way...


Exactly....just remember folks the vast majority of studies have agenda's before the study. Next thing you know F&S will be telling you that the deer in our cities don't exist and there is no such thing as deer control teams in cities and towns because we all know that deer stay away from cities and towns. Wild animals go and live pretty much wherever they want. We have ducks and geese on golf courses, we have deer in neighborhoods. Now if we're actually talking loss of habitat that is another issue. However the loss of habitat to oil and gas drilling once the well is in place is minimal at best.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Yep, all of you should remember this. Where there is oil and gas there are no deer so it is useless for you to put in for the Book Cliffs anymore, there aren't any deer out there.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*How long have you worked in oil n gas?*



LostLouisianian said:


> ................................................................... However the loss of habitat to oil and gas drilling once the well is in place is minimal at best.


I've worked in oil n gas since June 2nd 1969. You are mistaken.

The loss of habitat once the well is in place can be significant. There's roads, more roads, workers getting off the roads, "outdoorsman" using the oil n gas roads to access places they can drive off the roads, maintenance, power lines, pipelines, storage pits, storage tanks, spills, leaks, erosion out the ass, noxious weeds, and trash.

Since Wyoming sheepherder and Halliburton executive Dick Cheney was POUS, the BLM allows a well every 5 acres. Drill, baby, drill.

Every 5 acres baby:


Utah, just north of the Green River I helped screw all this up, thank you:


Pinedale WY; "the deer can just go around us"


WY Antelope Area 57. I can pick out the stuff I worked on in this aerial shot:


OK, yer up High Desert Elk


----------



## ted (Oct 22, 2011)

LostLouisianian said:


> Exactly....just remember folks the vast majority of studies have agenda's before the study.


This is the same kind of argument that throws science in with religion, the news, and facebook. Science brought you antibiotics, airplanes, and pretty much every creature comfort you can think of -- something that those other three didn't do.

You can argue with the details of where they worked and question their assumptions or research methods, but to say they started with an agenda and are therefore wrong is a cop out.

Also, habitat loss is a big part of the study. Check out figure 2.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> I've worked in oil n gas since June 2nd 1969. You are mistaken.
> 
> The loss of habitat once the well is in place can be significant. There's roads, more roads, workers getting off the roads, "outdoorsman" using the oil n gas roads to access places they can drive off the roads, maintenance, power lines, pipelines, storage pits, storage tanks, spills, leaks, erosion out the ass, noxious weeds, and trash.
> 
> ...


What percent of the habitat has been lost in Wyoming due to drilling, how many acres versus how many acres of land are in Wyoming total?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*You are mistaken*



LostLouisianian said:


> What percent of the habitat has been lost in Wyoming due to drilling, how many acres versus how many acres of land are in Wyoming total?


Too many. You look it up and get back to us. Thanks

.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Too many. You look it up and get back to us. Thanks
> 
> .


That's pretty much what I thought you would say.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*How long have you worked in oil n gas Lost?*



LostLouisianian said:


> That's pretty much what I thought you would say.


Try to get the % before the end of the day, thanks.

.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Yep, drilling proponents like to count just the pads, maybe throw in the roads in their calculations. Figures lie and liars figure. The real problem isn't just the percentage of disturbed habitat, but rather the fragmentation that occurs. Some species, like sage grouse, require larger areas of undisturbed habitat to thrive or even just to survive. Management decisions must be made on the best science available, those too stupid to respect science deserve no voice in the discussion.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

paddler said:


> Yep, drilling proponents like to count just the pads, maybe throw in the roads in their calculations. Figures lie and liars figure. The real problem isn't just the percentage of disturbed habitat, but rather the fragmentation that occurs. Some species, like sage grouse, require larger areas of undisturbed habitat to thrive or even just to survive. Management decisions must be made on the best science available, those too stupid to respect science deserve no voice in the discussion.


And those that drive gas or diesel powered vehicles deserve no voice in the discussion.....see how that works? You're part of the problem not the solution.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*no decimals*



LostLouisianian said:


> That's pretty much what I thought you would say.


Down to the nearest percentage point will be fine. thanks

.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Its key to skip the middleman and go straight to the source. Its one of the growing # of studies that doesn't have a paywall.

A couple responses:

1) Agenda: This was backed with the support of the oil and gas industry yet came to conclusions that could harm future projects. 

2) Isolated event: Only in so far as every emperical study like this is inherently related to its test subject. But read the study. Like every good peer review paper they have citations (ie authority). This one cites 8 other studies since 2001 (ie currency) studies that have also found statistically significant evidence of disturbance to ungulate populations due to energy projects. That clearly shows this is not an isolated event.

3) The North American Model prioritizes science-based management. Anecdotal evidence can help but it holds less weight than emperical findings like this, especially when its conclusions collate nicely with so many other studies. 

4) A loss of 36% of a wintering herd and a reduced harvest of 54% should catch any hunters attention.

5) Like WyoGoob showed, these aren't small projects. The Pinedale Anticline project included 5100 wells. I would wager someone will eventually design a study to see if their is a correlation between project size and the amount of ungulate disturbance. If so, we may find their is a break even point for energy projects that has minimal impact on game. Or maybe not.

6). The study was designed in a way that accounts for post-extraction reclamation. The impact listed above incorporates reclaimed pads. The herd size, harvest data and disturbance distance all reflect those wells.

7)Major accusations of having an agenda require similar evidence. Without evidence you are just tossing around red herrings. The trend in anti-science rhetoric has disturbing implications for wildlife management.

This study isn't the end all be all but it is clearly important.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Down to the nearest percentage point will be fine. thanks
> 
> .


Less than 1% of the land in Wyoming....


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Wyoming has a land area of 62.604 Million acres. There are 32,603 wells either in production or out of production. If we assign an acreage value of 3 acres per active and inactive well that gives you 97,809 acres. Divide the 97,809 by 62,604 Million and you get .156%. That isn't even a blip. In order to get just 1% you would have to theorize that each well caused the loss of 19 acres of habitat. At that outrageous number you would then get 1%. Let me put it another way. 99.844% of Wyoming is not affected by oil and gas drilling.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> Wyoming has a land area of 62.604 Million acres. There are 32,603 wells either in production or out of production. If we assign an acreage value of 3 acres per active and inactive well that gives you 97,809 acres. Divide the 97,809 by 62,604 Million and you get .156%. That isn't even a blip. In order to get just 1% you would have to theorize that each well caused the loss of 19 acres of habitat. At that outrageous number you would then get 1%. Let me put it another way. 99.844% of Wyoming is not affected by oil and gas drilling.


So, by your figures, there's no way that oil and gas drilling could possibly affect wildlife populations. This is another example of what I said above. You deserve no voice in these discussions. Of course, there's the 1A thing, so keep posting your ridiculous rubbish.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

paddler said:


> So, by your figures, there's no way that oil and gas drilling could possibly affect wildlife populations. This is another example of what I said above. You deserve no voice in these discussions. Of course, there's the 1A thing, so keep posting your ridiculous rubbish.


You have something against FACTS? I reported FACTS. You drew your own conclusion.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*you are mistaken*



LostLouisianian said:


> Wyoming has a land area of 62.604 Million acres. There are 32,603 wells either in production or out of production. If we assign an acreage value of 3 acres per active and inactive well that gives you 97,809 acres. Divide the 97,809 by 62,604 Million and you get .156%. That isn't even a blip. In order to get just 1% you would have to theorize that each well caused the loss of 19 acres of habitat. At that outrageous number you would then get 1%. Let me put it another way. 99.844% of Wyoming is not affected by oil and gas drilling.


Wow, you really don't get it do you. Each well has a road, a pipeline separate from the road, and many have power lines separate from every thing else. The access road in itself can be hundreds of acres.

They can directional drill more, hell, they'll recoup all the initial costs from the taxpayer. Thanks for your donation Lost.

I apologize that my GoogleEarth maps of some oil n gas fields didn't come through, I'll re-run them for ya.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*ya missed a few acres pilgrim*



LostLouisianian said:


> Wyoming has a land area of 62.604 Million acres. There are 32,603 wells either in production or out of production. If we assign an acreage value of 3 acres per active and inactive well that gives you 97,809 acres. Divide the 97,809 by 62,604 Million and you get .156%. That isn't even a blip. In order to get just 1% you would have to theorize that each well caused the loss of 19 acres of habitat. At that outrageous number you would then get 1%. Let me put it another way. 99.844% of Wyoming is not affected by oil and gas drilling.


You are mistaken again, sorry. Add up all the acres for the access roads, the pipeline right-of-ways, power line right-of-ways, storage pits and tank batteries, compressor stations, and then get back to us with an updated number. I'll have some more stuff for ya then.

Hey thanks, you're good at the math path part, but kinda weak gathering the data though. I'll help you get through it.

.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I won't say the drilling doesn't affect the wildlife populations and where the sage grouse live needs to be looked at real close if we don't want to loose them. 

However for the larger animals such as deer and elk there is a difference. Once the drilling derrick is pulled out and they are just pumping the oil or gas most of the platform will start to grow grasses around the fringes of it providing feed for these animals where it once was brush so thick that a person or animal could hardly walk through it. Then once the well has gone dry and no more workers are disturbing the ground on the platform more grass will grow providing even more feed. Then the sage brush and other brush species will start to fill it back in.

The biggest thing that I see that disturbs wildlife are the roads into these areas. If you keep the roads where a person can only travel 10-20mph then the animals might have a chance to get off of it before they get hit. But oil that road and allow truckers to run 50-60mph and you will see dead deer and elk every mile. Then access is also easier and more people can get into these areas which will hurt wildlife one way or another. I remember the south side of the Book Cliffs on the Bitter Creek Rd where you could not get to the top of the hill. It ended where there is now a gas plant. I even remember when the Divide Rd was just a two track, now look at it. You can still see sections of the old road where it went up over small hills following the ridge instead of around them like it does now. It would be nice if it was still a two track. 

The biggest problem is that you are not going to stop the exploration of underground fuels, you might slow it down but it won't stop. But sooner or later the fuels will be gone and nature will take the platforms back over.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> You have something against FACTS? I reported FACTS. You drew your own conclusion.


As I said, figures lie and liars figure. You posted that over 99% of Wyoming is not impacted by drilling. A more correct interpretation would be that less than 1% of the total surface land area consists of roads and pads for drilling. That's assuming that your figures are correct, and given your long history of posting BS, I will not concede that. But, if less that 1% of the surface area is indeed occupied by the above, does it logically follow that drilling cannot possibly have meaningful negative impacts on wildlife populations? There is absolutely no scientific basis for drawing any such conclusion, and that fact makes your post worthy of the trash bin. Your post starkly reveals not only your desire to mislead, but also your dishonesty and lack of familiarity with the scientific method. As I said, those who have no respect for science deserve no voice. Run along now, go play with your Legos. Maybe you could build a drilling rig.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*they make fertilizer out of oil ya know*



Critter said:


> I won't say the drilling doesn't affect the wildlife populations and where the sage grouse live needs to be looked at real close if we don't want to loose them.
> 
> However for the larger animals such as deer and elk there is a difference. Once the drilling derrick is pulled out and they are just pumping the oil or gas most of the platform will start to grow grasses around the fringes of it providing feed for these animals where it once was brush so thick that a person or animal could hardly walk through it. Then once the well has gone dry and no more workers are disturbing the ground on the platform more grass will grow providing even more feed. Then the sage brush and other brush species will start to fill it back in.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking with global warming we could grow vegetables on the oil n gas stuff. Fracking will provide the water in those dry places like the Uintah Basin and Wyoming's Red Desert. Personally, I rather see okra and watermelon patches in the Uintah Basin than what they got growing now.

Some day all this disturbance will be a thing of the past and the earth will heal. It heals pretty fast really. A lot of the gas fields north of Evanston are shut down, the formations have run their course and the land is healing quickly....There's no deer though.

Critter, can you help Lost with some of the calculations please. I'm really busy. thanks

.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Critter, can you help Lost with some of the calculations please. I'm really busy. thanks
> 
> .


I quit doing math and statistics when I retired 9 years ago.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*I have mo pictures*

Can everyone see these pictures? They're not coming through for Lost.











I have more, even close-ups, but haven't put them in Photobucket yet.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

LostLouisianian said:


> Wyoming has a land area of 62.604 Million acres. There are 32,603 wells either in production or out of production. If we assign an acreage value of 3 acres per active and inactive well that gives you 97,809 acres. Divide the 97,809 by 62,604 Million and you get .156%. That isn't even a blip. In order to get just 1% you would have to theorize that each well caused the loss of 19 acres of habitat. At that outrageous number you would then get 1%. Let me put it another way. 99.844% of Wyoming is not affected by oil and gas drilling.


First, what you are doing is called "moving the goalpost". The study's conclusion isn't principally about loss of habitat, which is accounted for in the study design, but disturbance and abundance.

Second, beyond the fallacy mentioned above, your argument isn't sound or apples to apples. If we are looking at wells, then its a matter of the disturbance those 32,603 wells have on ungulates, especially on winter range. Its not habitat loss solely based on pad size (the goalpost you tried to move) but about disturbance to mule deer populations. Without more data its hard to extrapolate much from the statistics you provided in relation to the study conclusions. My quick math is that radius accounts for a 4782969 sq meter impact. If I am right that amounts to a potential 1182 acre disturbance per well according to your black and white logic. Multiply that by 32,603 wells and we have a potential habitat loss of almost 39 million acres of land for mule deer because of avoidance. That would be almost half of Wyoming according to your numbers. But we both know that isn't correct nor does your simplistic math hold any water in relationship to this study. Its clearly significantly more complex and multivariate than you account for and are willing to admit.

Its unfortunate to see members of the hunting community approach scientific research so haphazardly. Scientific literacy is paramount to hunting and game management given the pressures we place on our wildlife (# of hunters, loss to habitat quantity and quality, climate change, recreational impacts, etc). If we aren't vulnerable to empirical studies and their implications to our pursuits than ultimately we are at fault for failing to manage sustainable herds for our own enjoyment. I know it was hard for me to read the study a few years ago that found foot traffic actually had greater impact on wildlife than motorized traffic. For years the assumption, largely from personal experience anecdotes, was that motorized traffic had greater influence on wildlife behavior and disturbance. But new information is finding its clearly is not as simple as we think and could be completely contrary to those beliefs. Its made me re-evaluate many ideas I have held for years. Science-based management carries that burden and without it we are just doomed to perpetuate the useless cycles of ideological warfare that have led to unfortunate outcomes for our community in the past. We are capable of managing our herds better but also clearly capable of worse.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> Its key to skip the middleman and go straight to the source. Its one of the growing # of studies that doesn't have a paywall.
> 
> A couple responses:
> 
> ...


This is the type of analysis that is meaningful.

Also, for some(one) to claim that because you drive a car you can't complain about the effects of drilling is nonsensical. We are all part of the problem in one way or another. Therefore, we should ALL strive to find a way to minimize our impact, especially in the context of wildlife conservation.

Dismissing scientific research because it doesn't fit our narrative(both sides can be guilty of this) is a dangerous habit that needs to be kicked.


----------



## ted (Oct 22, 2011)

backcountry said:


> Its unfortunate to see members of the hunting community approach scientific research so haphazardly. Scientific literacy is paramount to hunting and game management given the pressures we place on our wildlife


This is the best thing I've read all day.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

This situation reminds me of the Malthusian Trap...

Thank goodness for the closed to public access in use lease road a few years back - made it super easy to wheel my wife's and nieces elk out on game carts a whole lot easier!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Can everyone see these pictures? They're not coming through for Lost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would you like me to post the hundreds of google satellite images of Wyoming where NO wells exist. Surely you know how to use google satellite view don't you. If you don't I can show you. You have yet to dispute the facts with facts. By the way care to guess how many acres interstates and other paved roads NOT associated or related to drilling take up in Wyoming?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Exactly....just remember folks the vast majority of studies have agenda's before the study. Next thing you know F&S will be telling you that the deer in our cities don't exist and there is no such thing as deer control teams in cities and towns because we all know that deer stay away from cities and towns. Wild animals go and live pretty much wherever they want. We have ducks and geese on golf courses, we have deer in neighborhoods. Now if we're actually talking loss of habitat that is another issue. However the loss of habitat to oil and gas drilling once the well is in place is minimal at best.


Good, now show me your studies and proof for your claims those other things have had more affects? Let's see your study LL. I am sick of people convieniently ignoring facts because they don't want to stray away from the way they want to feel. Anyone who believes oil pads dotted on a landscape like those goob posted along with the roads, along with the invasive weeds that come in when it is reclaimed, along with the pesticides used during reclaimation, is up in the night. You just want to ignore it because you don't want to admit it DOES have an affect. I'm not one who wants to see energy development removed from our public lands, but wiser extraction is a must and it does affect wildlife. Whether that be because it makes it easier for people to get in and hunt areas that were harder to access before a million roads were cut in, deer avoiding these areas, or any number of other reasons. The affects don't just disappear because you want to believe they aren't there due to personal bias.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Wow. I was within 10 yards of a group of about 60 antelope on a well pad last year on my hunt. I was hiding behind the little shack even! However, that in no way leads me to believe that oil and gas development are somehow beneficial or don't have an effect on wildlife. We have to rely on the scientific research. 

It's ok to acknowledge an effect, and at the same time acknowledge that we need resources. Having an honest discussion about the impact using science-based research is paramount.

Also, all human development can be detrimental, since you brought up other roads, developments, etc. But that's not what this is really about. If we were talking about a new cabin community with a new interstate being proposed by the Interior, we could have that discussion. As it is now, that was simply deflection.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

By a show of hands, who hear has worked in oil and gas and dealt with the regulatory requirements associated with it on a day to day basis? Goob - you don't count 

I'll start...1


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Good, now show me your studies and proof for your claims those other things have had more affects? Let's see your study LL. I am sick of people convieniently ignoring facts because they don't want to stray away from the way they want to feel. Anyone who believes oil pads dotted on a landscape like those goob posted along with the roads, along with the invasive weeds that come in when it is reclaimed, along with the pesticides used during reclaimation, is up in the night. You just want to ignore it because you don't want to admit it DOES have an affect. I'm not one who wants to see energy development removed from our public lands, but wiser extraction is a must and it does affect wildlife. Whether that be because it makes it easier for people to get in and hunt areas that were harder to access before a million roads were cut in, deer avoiding these areas, or any number of other reasons. The affects don't just disappear because you want to believe they aren't there due to personal bias.


Where did I say that it doesn't have an effect, I cannot help your lack of reading comprehension skills. Where did I say I don't favor wiser extraction, again I cannot help your lack of reading comprehension skills. If you would quit putting your words in my mouth you might learn something. I provided factual data that shows the FACT that Wyoming has plenty of land that is free of oil pads. Does drilling have an effect on wildlife, sure, but in most cases it is temporary and changes. I could name a hundred things that have an effect on wildlife and still have a longer list. But the FACT remains that oil and gas wells affect less than 1% of the total land area of Wyoming leaving over 99% not affected by oil and gas wells. Those my friend are indisputable FACTS. Now since you apparently have a reading comprehension problem let me highlight a quote from my post so you can read it carefully.

However the loss of habitat to oil and gas drilling once the well is in place is minimal at best.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> By a show of hands, who hear has worked in oil and gas and dealt with the regulatory requirements associated with it on a day to day basis? Goob - you don't count
> 
> I'll start...1


I don't anymore but I did put in my 12 years in it and dealt with environmental regulations on a daily basis. I even got to know the OSHA folks on a personal basis during those 12 years.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> By a show of hands, who hear has worked in oil and gas and dealt with the regulatory requirements associated with it on a day to day basis? Goob - you don't count
> 
> I'll start...1


How is that relevant and not just another distraction? I ask as this study was conducted from 2001 to the present so it would account for the current regulatory environment. Under those processes there was a significant impact to both herd size and distribution.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

High Desert Elk said:


> By a show of hands, who hear has worked in oil and gas and dealt with the regulatory requirements associated with it on a day to day basis? Goob - you don't count
> 
> I'll start...1


Cool. Trying to invalidate others' statements because you work in extraction and clearly only those who work in extraction can have an informed/unbiased opinion, right? Well played.

Can you also raise your hand and state that you have conducted peer-reviewed scientific research at a university level about the effects of Oil and Gas development on wildlife?

I can't either, but that's what we're discussing here. (If you have, I'll defer to you in this matter and I preemptively apologize for disagreeing vehemently with your sentiment.)

I respect that you have a differing opinion about the effects of resource extraction on wildlife, or that you may believe it is sufficiently regulated. I also think your experience and opinion has value in the discussion due to a working knowledge of the regulatory processes and plenty of anecdotal evidence.

I just hate to see well-conducted, peer-reviewed research thrown out the window because of politics, anecdotes, or opinions.

If we say there is plenty of regulation, and the effect is minimal, yet the declines are likely due, in part, to oil and gas development, then where does that leave us? Are we OK with the declines, or do we try and analyze and reassess to better understand the real consequences and apply that in decision making going forward?

This can be applied to all identifiable correlations with wildlife decline, not just oil and gas development. But, as that is the topic at hand......

.
.

Also......here*


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

LostLouisianian said:


> Where did I say that it doesn't have an effect, I cannot help your lack of reading comprehension skills. Where did I say I don't favor wiser extraction, again I cannot help your lack of reading comprehension skills. If you would quit putting your words in my mouth you might learn something. I provided factual data that shows the FACT that Wyoming has plenty of land that is free of oil pads. Does drilling have an effect on wildlife, sure, but in most cases it is temporary and changes. I could name a hundred things that have an effect on wildlife and still have a longer list. But the FACT remains that oil and gas wells affect less than 1% of the total land area of Wyoming leaving over 99% not affected by oil and gas wells. Those my friend are indisputable FACTS. Now since you apparently have a reading comprehension problem let me highlight a quote from my post so you can read it carefully.
> 
> However the loss of habitat to oil and gas drilling once the well is in place is minimal at best.


Lost,

You confuse "indisputable fact", like empirical analysis (Edit: even scientific findings are always open to revision by design, though it takes further research), with an argument you happen to believe. You state a few pieces of data and then draw conclusions without actually testing them. Which is ironic, given this study actually tests their hypothesis and found statistical significance. Yet you keep making claims that fly contrary to their findings, and those of many other current studies, without any empirical support.

Its completely fine to have a personal opinion but its a completely different story to claim some level of "fact" that is inconsistent with real studies and not expect criticism. I don't think anyone doubts the veracity of your belief that this study is insignificant compared to the effect of habitat loss. I don't think anyone doubts the veracity of your belief that energy projects specifically have minimal impact in relationship to other influences on wildlife. But that doesn't make your belief fact. The burden of proof is on you to support those ideas and it requires alot more than a few data points about land sizes of states and un-sourced data about the number of wells.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> By a show of hands, who hear has worked in oil and gas and dealt with the regulatory requirements associated with it on a day to day basis? Goob - you don't count
> 
> I'll start...1


Who cares? If anything it makes your opinions much more bias. Having experience with extractive industries does not make you an expert on wildlife or their habitat.

Also LL, I mistook HDE post for yours, so I'd like to see your study HDE that those other issues have more of an affect than oil and gas in a given area, let's see your study. I don't know for sure you're wrong, but your opinion doesn't make you right, and I'll take those studying the issue slightly more seriously than someone who worked in the extractive industry and minimizes the affects by your opinion because you saw a few big bucks standing right next to a well pad. That doesn't mean it isn't adversely affecting a herd of mule deer in a bigger way than your opinion might believe.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Dam*, glad I didn't chime in on this one. LL...they kicked your butt on this one, but for the most part, we still love ya.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Only thing I am after is if those (of us) that have seen anything in real life day to day of any trend that may have been seen, if any, of improved regulatory processes applied that may or may not have had any benefit or hindrance to deer populations in energy development corridors from northern Montana to southwestern New Mexico.

Often times, the guys out on their run day in and day out see patterns or notice a decline or improvement of deer numbers, movement patterns, etc. 

Within the last decade, while staking and onsiting wells with the BLM and USFS, the common core order of importance is cultural resource (archaeology) and encroachments on animal and plant habitat. Big game wintering areas are a big deal in San juan and Rio Arriba counties in NM where NO rig activity is allowed from Oct through March.

The presence of energy extraction has had an impact on deer populations, NMDGF also has a guideline for oil and gas developement that speaks to habitat loss and fragmentation as well as impact of total acreage disturbed, but at the same time recognizes the importance of economic impact it brings to state revenue measured in billions of dollars - so it is definately a juggling act of meeting all interest groups. This guideline, fwiw, was written under the Honerable Gov Bill Richardson's Roundhouse (kinda like Pres So and So's Whitehouse) some 12 or so years ago (at least in 2005...)

Ssoooo, I do know that a concious effort has been made to reduce the imapct as much as possible. I have, however, noticed fewer deer numbers over the years in portions of unit 2A and 2B. I still cannot draw a tag in those two units because of popularity and dang sure can't in 2C as it is way popular because of trophy quality.

The guideline also discusses measures taken where a moratorium to energy development is off limits in pristine critical habitat areas like the Valle Vidal unit (which I drew this year hehe :grin. So, no, I don't believe the O&G industry just runs amok.

But who am I kidding, I may just be bias and my question was irrelevant and distracting...

Edit: I am no longer in oil and gas and really don't know if I will ever go back.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

HDE, I don't think the conversation is so much the oil and gas industry running amok, the conversation is does energy development affect wildlife, specifically mule deer in this conversation. IMO there's no way it can't. I agree that some improvements have been made to offset old problems, I also ageee some regulations do nothing to help wildlife even when the point of the regulation is for that purpose. My argument isn't that the oil and gas industry is running around destroying mule deer and sage grouse populations, my problem is with people who don't want to cross that line and just admit oil and gas development probably isn't good for wildlife and specifically mule deer. Mule deer have so many odds stacked against them, I agree stopping oil and gas development even in critical wintering areas is no silver bullet for the mule deer, but it is a contributing factor to their decline in some areas. That doesn't mean I'm an environmentalist, that doesn't mean I hate or want to stop oil and gas development, it simply means I'm being honest. To often we base our facts off our opinions rather than our opinions off of facts. With the hundreds of miles of high quality roads every place it happens, well pad locations, along with all the other things I've already listed, there's simply no way you can call it a positive impact and not a negative impact. We need an economy and we do need jobs, but we also can try our best to keep wildlife habitat and populations comfortable and healthy in areas we choose to dot with energy development and find more efficient and less impactful ways of extracting those resources.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I believe I have acknowledged it has had an impact. I don't think it's the boogieman some think it is. There are other things thay affect it as well, so why not talk about that too?

Some try to point the finger too much at just one thing...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk,

Starting to understand your perspective better. The way you minimized the study with such certainty in your first post left me vigilant. I still think the question you asked is largely tangental as they study accounts for current regulatory framework. This study actually has potential implications for the closure policy of the Unit you reference as the impact persisted even after pads were inactive or decommissioned (don't have study in front of me to reference exact language). If this study translates to other areas than the winter closure may have limited impact on mule deer disturbance. 

I also disagree with the idea that energy projects have run amok. I actually advocated for the recent BLM wells outside Zion NP that so many of my friends were against. Too often my environmental friends (a camp I abandoned years ago) are against any extraction project even when its small and relatively thoughtful. That seems shortsighted to me. On the other hand, I also have seen the scale of projects outside of places like Duchesne. Projects like that are hard to justify from a recreational and wildlife standpoint. I think the implications of this study are valuable to consider with such massive projects like that.

Its also important to highlight that modern conservation recognizes many stressors aren't isolated from one another or simply additive. We can see exponential harm from things like energy projects on herds already experiencing stress from fragmented habitat, climate change, etc. Agencies are capable of mitigating multiple issues at once so the notion that other variables are worse isn't a just reason to ignore the findings this study highlights. Its actually an issue that can be tackled with relative ease compared to broader, longer term issues like habitat loss and quality. 

We just saw Zinke rhetorically open a big door for US energy development in the US in his Montana speech. While I don't believe extraction has run amok I also haven't seen evidence that everything possible has been done to reduce impact to our wildlife. When we see herds reduced by 36% and harvest success 54% lower than I think we can clearly expect better wether that be in the form of regulation, more restrictive leasing of public lands or innovation coming out of the private sector.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Phenomena such as harsh winters certainly suppress any steps forward that were made. I can certainly appreciate the loss experienced by development as I have seen areas drilled at the very place I've killed deer, once upon a time ago when I could actually draw a deer tag. 

Danged if you do, danged if you don't...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I believe I have acknowledged it has had an impact. I don't think it's the boogieman some think it is. There are other things thay affect it as well, so why not talk about that too?
> 
> Some try to point the finger too much at just one thing...


I'm sorry what was this thread about? I agree predators, invasive weeds, fire cycles now, housing development, winter range degradation and development, chemicals we put on the landscape, roada, climate change/drought, etc. all have affects on deer and we do discuss them however this post is specifically about oil and gas. Just as much as some people want to make it the boogie man there are others on the other side of the coin whowant to resist the fact that it is a contributing factor and excuse the fact that it may have a negative impact. I'm not making oil and gas the boogie man, I'm saying after reading some comments and reactions to this article it is asinine that some people want to act as though it has no negative impacts. I'm not saying you said it has no impact, but I feel you are trying to minimize the affect it may be having discrediting a very credible study. The comment about the fact you worked in the extractive industry was a non-factor to this discussion. Part of my issue is with reactions I've read elsewhere to this article by people who are the typical conservative hunters who scoff at the idea of calling out the fact extractive industries have an affect on mule deer because they don't like any negativity put towards those industries. I'm sorry for directing such pointed comments at you, I've grown more frustrated with others comments on this study who have their PHD in coffee shop biology and have no clue what they are actually talking about.

Two things can be true at the same time, I can support extractive industries on our public lands and still believe they can be detrimental to our wildlife. Too many hunters seem to believe those ideas are mutually exclusive or that shedding any negative light on things like oil and gas is strictly taboo. Why we have to be so polarized on issues in this country is ridiculous. Anyway HDE not all these comments in this post are directed at you, I just grow frustrated seeing people fully attempt to discredit credible studies simply because it doesn't match their opinion or what they want to think. I'm glad you can acknowledge that oil and gas likely has negative impacts on wildlife, I just felt the comment about you working in the extractive industry had no relevance to this and was attempting to excuse the affects oil and gas may have on wildlife simply because it is regulated.

Still love you HDE


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Everyone's missing the really big picture here. The real impact of gas and oil on wildlife is all the people that it takes to run, build, tear down, etc all that crap. Think of what the population of Wyoming would be without gas and oil. How many acres of housing does it take to support all that? Plus, most of the imports are hunters and/or poachers, many are litterers, they all poop twice a day, and most drive vehicles that get less than 10 mpg.

Like the field of dreams....."If you build it they will come." But, once you un-build it, they never go.------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

OH, and I don't see how we need science when common sense will do...How could the activities associated with gas and oil NOT have a negative impact on wildlife? Same as any other invasive human activity......like the developments where we all live. Fact is that we make an impact.

The real question for each of us to consider is where our threshold of tolerance for impact lies. Science can be applied here. Back to the Pinchot/Muir argument.------SS


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

The experience thing is relavant and here's why: you will see anecdotal evidence in support of the study and like it or not you may see things contrary to the study as well, of course in isolated and unique areas. An academic can publish their science project and key in on a single factor, in this case, oil and gas activity and it's negative impact on mule deer populations. But to sit there and think this is the only factor is nonsensical at best...

But there is a silver lining, the petroleum industry is slowly being phased out as we know it (only to be replaced by something else). I hope that academia is as objective on the study of impact on mule deer from solar and wind farms. That will be an interesting read.

Cheers


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> The experience thing is relavant and here's why: you will see anecdotal evidence in support of the study and like it or not you may see things contrary to the study as well, of course in isolated and unique areas. An academic can publish their science project and key in on a single factor, in this case, oil and gas activity and it's negative impact on mule deer populations. But to sit there and think this is the only factor is nonsensical at best...
> 
> But there is a silver lining, the petroleum industry is slowly being phased out as we know it (only to be replaced by something else). I hope that academia is as objective on the study of impact on mule deer from solar and wind farms. That will be an interesting read.
> 
> Cheers


There have been studies that target predators, that target invasive species, etc. There should be one on oil and gas as well. I agree things like solar and wind can be just as damaging. Also, I don't think anyone is saying oil and gas is the only factor just A factor.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> The experience thing is relavant and here's why: you will see anecdotal evidence in support of the study and like it or not you may see things contrary to the study as well, of course in isolated and unique areas. An academic can publish their science project and key in on a single factor, in this case, oil and gas activity and it's negative impact on mule deer populations. But to sit there and think this is the only factor is nonsensical at best...
> 
> But there is a silver lining, the petroleum industry is slowly being phased out as we know it (only to be replaced by something else). I hope that academia is as objective on the study of impact on mule deer from solar and wind farms. That will be an interesting read.
> 
> Cheers


I think we are all in agreement on the complex reality of wildlife management and the way multiple variables have to be accounted for in the process.

Per solar...I am sure we will see more studies analyzing large scale projects in the near future. The way those projects basically sterilize an entire area undoubtedly has affect on ungulates. We already know they affect other wildlife and tons of time has been spent studying and mitigating those issues. We just often have to triage with limited budgets so you see initial focus on endemic and sensitive/endangered species.

I am not as optimistic that oil and gas are being intentionally phased out. It seems every week I hear about new projects being proposed and bid on in public lands around the west. Energy companies are undoubtedly preparing for new technologies but we seem to still be in the midst of a major fossil fuel boom in the west as evidenced by places like the Western Slope of CO, Uinta Basin, etc. I haven't looked into the details but a story about the proposed project near Dino NM keeps popping up on my feed. Given the rhetoric of the current administration I think we will see the flood gates open up soon. Zinke's recent speech seemed to make it clear that what we are currently doing is not enough. Given this study's finding I fear we are not out of the woods yet with the influence on ungulates.

So be it, only so much we can influence as individuals. We educate ourselves, apply pressure where/when we can and the largely have to hope for the best.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*I use Mercaptan for bear bait*



LostLouisianian said:


> Would you like me to post the hundreds of google satellite images of Wyoming where NO wells exist. Please do, and hurry, I'm kinda busy. Surely you know how to use google satellite view don't you. If you don't I can show you. I'm good, thanks, you can do it for us.  You have yet to dispute the facts with facts. You are mistaken. By the way care to guess how many acres interstates and other paved roads NOT associated or related to drilling take up in Wyoming? No, I don't care to guess. Actually I don't care how many acres of interstates and a other paved roads NOT associated or related to drilling take up in Wyoming. It's not relevant.


See red.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*numbers drop by 40% as deer avoid oil & gas wells*

Just out today. Deer numbers drop almost 40 percent as animals avoid oil and gas wells, new study shows:

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_60d7a0c4-7d50-5600-9f56-56310aa089b3.html


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Just out today. Deer numbers drop almost 40 percent as animals avoid oil and gas wells, new study shows:
> 
> http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_60d7a0c4-7d50-5600-9f56-56310aa089b3.html


What are you saying, goob? That roads are bad for wildlife? Some here don't think so:

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/1793170-post127.html


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Another slightly off topic comment but I also wanted to mention the big semi trucks that haul oil from the fields. They run up and down the highway at breakneck speeds smashing deer and elk with their oversized Armageddon style bumpers. All day and all night long past my place up in the basin on HWY 40. Probably 300+ per day. Hundreds of dead animal splatters in the wake. They do splatter a few people too, which scientifically speaking, would help the mule deer I guess.--------SS


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Good thing oil and gas prices are suppressed right now...


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*drill, baby, drill*



High Desert Elk said:


> Good thing oil and gas prices are suppressed right now...


Yeah, I agree.

The market is saturated anyway and pipelines are at capacity or leak product all over the place.

:boink:


----------

