# Gunnison sage grouse now listed



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

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1536-gunnison-sage-grouse-decision.html

Well the Gunnison Sage grouse will be listed.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1536-gunnison-sage-grouse-decision.html
> 
> Well the Gunnison Sage grouse will be listed.


I just saw this...thats sad...I never hunted sage grouse but to hear their endangered brings sadness :'(


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

The Gunnison Sage grouse is not the same as the Greater Sage grouse that you can still hunt for here in UT. Not saying that the Greater Sage grouse won't be in the same situation down the road unfortunately....


----------



## SanJuanBoy (Sep 16, 2013)

People don't hunt these birds where they're being listed in Colorado and Utah. They're endangered because they're not reproducing and high levels of predation from coyotes and bobcats. All this ruling did was steal the use of millions of acres of land from private land owners and you and I on public lands. Not to mention hurt the local economies of the small towns that surround the areas designated. Also if you read the statement from the Utah DWR placing the bird on the endangered species list may do more damage than good. This ruling is nothing more than a big middle finger to the people who live in S.E. Utah and S.W. Colorado and has little to do with actually protecting the birds.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Colorado is planning on suing the feds over the listing.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/politics/2014/11/13/sage-grouse-lawsuit/18975555/


----------



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

SanJuanBoy said:


> People don't hunt these birds where they're being listed in Colorado and Utah. They're endangered because they're not reproducing and high levels of predation from coyotes and bobcats. All this ruling did was steal the use of millions of acres of land from private land owners and you and I on public lands. Not to mention hurt the local economies of the small towns that surround the areas designated. Also if you read the statement from the Utah DWR placing the bird on the endangered species list may do more damage than good. This ruling is nothing more than a big middle finger to the people who live in S.E. Utah and S.W. Colorado and has little to do with actually protecting the birds.


While I agree with you on some points I don't think this is the "feds giving the finger". These federal employees/biologists you speak of are just citizens like you or me, educated and reporting what they have seen. Private land owners and cattleman on many fronts (not all) are unwilling to work for the preservation of wildlife or wild places while also getting use out of the land. Most I meet want the most use out of all the land as possible with little regard to the future generations or future issues that may occur. The grouse was listed as threatened not endangered yet, which means there is still a point to where the land can but used but on a much wiser, and yes time consuming scale. Everyone ganging up on the BLM, Forest Service, and USFWS is not going to be beneficial for either side. Working with the federal agencies rather than against them will go much farther. I'm tired of some claiming the federal government is out to get local ranchers and landowners. With increased development and use of land obviously more protection is going to come and be needed to ensure wildlife and wild places will continue into the future. Sometimes $$$ aren't worth the destruction of all wild places and wild things.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Everyone has an agenda. Biologist included.


----------



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

Critter said:


> Colorado is planning on suing the feds over the listing.
> 
> http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/politics/2014/11/13/sage-grouse-lawsuit/18975555/


I love the constant, let us twiddle our thumbs more approach that is continually given in to. Oil and gas can be extracted in a better way and can continue but not in the way its allowed for the bird to do well. States continually ask for more and more time, and yet they aren't fixing the issues concerning the situation with anything but voluntary actions which aren't taking place. If anything I would take this as a warning from the federal government over the Greater Sage Grouse issue that has less than a year to be solved. I am surprised they listed the Gunnison, and they did it on oil and gas field areas, this may be a sign they are also willing to list the Greater if states don't shape up and actually work towards lessening the effects of economic and energy development on the sage grouses turf. I'm for land use, but not in the face of destroying everything else for it.


----------



## SanJuanBoy (Sep 16, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I
Did you read the article you posted the link for? Even the Utah DWR thinks this decision may have a negative impact on the sage grouse and at best make the process of fixing the problem more drawn out and time consuming. People weren't twiddling their thumbs they were working together for a solution with input from all parties involved. You want to talk about twiddling thumbs just wait now the feds are involved because that's all that will get done. The states of Colorado and Utah, the local governments along with the land owners were working to fix the problem and were progressing just fine. Now all that hard work will be for nothing and future attempts to do anything will be derailed or drawn out so long that no one wins including the grouse.

As far as the losing habitat to development angle goes, it doesn't hold much water here either as most of the land is undeveloped range land or farmland. I'm against most the oil and gas stuff as well. Besides being on different sides of the fence there is no difference between the oil and gas companies and the Feds, they both take what they want and don't give a dang about anything but their own agendas. 

Our ranchers and farmers are some of our most dedicated conservationist. No one understands the land they work better than they do, but thanks to the few bad apples in that group who only care about money the titles rancher and farmer have been tainted.

You're correct that $$$ isn't worth the destruction of wild things. Whether that money comes from Halliburton or Environmental special interest groups in Washington.


----------



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

SanJuanBoy said:


> #1DEER 1-I
> Did you read the article you posted the link for? Even the Utah DWR thinks this decision may have a negative impact on the sage grouse and at best make the process of fixing the problem more drawn out and time consuming. People weren't twiddling their thumbs they were working together for a solution with input from all parties involved. You want to talk about twiddling thumbs just wait now the feds are involved because that's all that will get done. The states of Colorado and Utah, the local governments along with the land owners were working to fix the problem and were progressing just fine. Now all that hard work will be for nothing and future attempts to do anything will be derailed or drawn out so long that no one wins including the grouse.
> 
> As far as the losing habitat to development angle goes, it doesn't hold much water here either as most of the land is undeveloped range land or farmland. I'm against most the oil and gas stuff as well. Besides being on different sides of the fence there is no difference between the oil and gas companies and the Feds, they both take what they want and don't give a dang about anything but their own agendas.
> ...


Of course the state DWR is going to endorse the state. Of course the state and local land owners have talked and worked on things but it hasn't been enough. I agree things to help the bird should be an easier process once listed, but remember it was listed threatened not endangered, so it won't be as hard as if it gets to that point . The landowners I see and talk to , very few are actually concerned on issues like this until it comes knocking at there door. Also, yes farmers and ranchers understand there land the best to get economical interests out of it. As for educated, scientific based understanding, I've met very few that understand that.


----------



## Special (Aug 24, 2014)

Let's also remember what ranchers and farmers have done in the past. The dust bowl was caused by over farming (yes I know drought played a role). I get tired of this bashing on the feds by states and private citizens when it comes to issues like these. But yet when there is a wildfire they all want the feds to come running.


----------



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

Special said:


> Let's also remember what ranchers and farmers have done in the past. The dust bowl was caused by over farming (yes I know drought played a role). I get tired of this bashing on the feds by states and private citizens when it comes to issues like these. But yet when there is a wildfire they all want the feds to come running.


Agreed, landowners /farmers concerns are to use the land, and many times to an overuse . Where I'm at many have a gripe with deer and elk and have to have there whiney asses attended to to allow multiple use of there land . What exactly do you think the feds get out of this SanJuanBoy ? It's not like now they are going to make money on the land , what's wrong with keeping the Gunnison sage grouse around by protecting it's habitat. Concerns by private and state investors weren't enough , the chance was given just like it's being given for the Greater, it's not an all the sudden suprise this happened. Why doesn't the oil and gas industry clean up there act a little and not fragment habitat to such an extent it's useless, instead of spending millions on lobbying to prevent things like this? Morgan county is considering developing 2 important sage grouse leks which is just providing further evidence the state and private landowners can't work things in a way that is beneficial to anything but dollar signs , so the federal government ensures they will . If states and private landowners would work things better this wouldn't happen.


----------



## hemionus (Aug 23, 2009)

Someone once told me that when both sides are pissed off due to a listing they probably did right...........fair assessment I think.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Agreed, landowners /farmers concerns are to use the land, and many times to an overuse . Where I'm at many have a gripe with deer and elk and have to have there whiney asses attended to to allow multiple use of there land . What exactly do you think the feds get out of this SanJuanBoy ? It's not like now they are going to make money on the land , what's wrong with keeping the Gunnison sage grouse around by protecting it's habitat. Concerns by private and state investors weren't enough , the chance was given just like it's being given for the Greater, it's not an all the sudden suprise this happened. Why doesn't the oil and gas industry clean up there act a little and not fragment habitat to such an extent it's useless, instead of spending millions on lobbying to prevent things like this? Morgan county is considering developing 2 important sage grouse leks which is just providing further evidence the state and private landowners can't work things in a way that is beneficial to anything but dollar signs , so the federal government ensures they will . If states and private landowners would work things better this wouldn't happen.


----------



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

klbzdad said:


>


Glad you gave your input.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Just razzing you. I'm not chiming in on this issue because its not worth arguing with folks who think the government is good at fixing endangered anything. How did that Spotted Owl [email protected]# work out for ya? The Utah Prairie Dog? The "Wild" Mustangs? How do you enjoy paying out the butt for produce in our country thanks to a worthless little fish in California that has zero importance in ecology? Don't whine about access to closed off land in your back yard when they find a chupacabra in your neighborhood and classify it as "threatened".


----------



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

klbzdad said:


> Just razzing you. I'm not chiming in on this issue because its not worth arguing with folks who think the government is good at fixing endangered anything. How did that Spotted Owl [email protected]# work out for ya? The Utah Prairie Dog? The "Wild" Mustangs? How do you enjoy paying out the butt for produce in our country thanks to a worthless little fish in California that has zero importance in ecology? Don't whine about access to closed off land in your back yard when they find a chupacabra in your neighborhood and classify it as "threatened".


I'll have a discussion about it. Do I believe this fixes the problem? No , to fix the problem it can't just be put on a list and nothing be done from there. Are there better ways , yes, but unless the general public, state, and landowners are willing to protect and preserve things the best they can while still utilizing resources (which isn't happening now in the best ways, I think you can agree) federal protection is gonna keep coming. You can write the Gunnison off as a worthless wild chicken if you want but really mule deer, elk , and pronghorn also depend on there same systems and current practices are putting those systems at risk . This doesn't fix the problem, it just allows the problem to stay the same. My two biggest gripes are with oil&gas and over grazing. When there's oil the landscape is spotted entirely with pads and many Utah farmers feel the best way to utilize the land is feed the grasses to nearly bare ground. If those practices could get better by both parties working with the state and feds rather than against them we'd get somewhere. I don't want to see us lose the Gunnison or greater sage grouse, but the willingness to help wildlife like this needs to be there before the federal government comes knocking at the door , not just a hurried last ditch ever to avoid the scary reality of a listing. Things shouldn't be taken to a point the feds even show up at the door. There's a lot of nonsense on both sides and each side is just waiting for the other to blink , but the feds rarely blink so good luck.

I'm honestly suprised to see the listing, but with this listing and the countdown on the Greater SG coming , I'd start cleaning up the act on the affects given to the Greater Sage grouse before the date arrives.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I think I am going to stay out of this one, go to bed, and poke my eyes out with the remote. Going fishing in the morning anyhow.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

1I, may I suggest moving to China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, or Vietnam. All counties without awful landowner ranchers to ruin habitat and your future.

You have a misanthropy issue. And you will live in torment so long as you identify other humans as the root of all evil.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> 1I, may I suggest moving to China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, or Vietnam. All counties without awful landowner ranchers to ruin habitat and your future.
> 
> You have a misanthropy issue. And you will live in torment so long as you identify other humans as the root of all evil.


Yeah iron bear because lions, and tigers, and bears have had much more detrimental affects than humans. Are you willing to tell me decreasing populations of sage grouse are not caused by people either ?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yes.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Spend a yr with a flock of sage grouse and you will see. A majority of grouse die from predators not humans.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> Spend a yr with a flock of sage grouse and you will see. A majority of grouse die from predators not humans.


Of course you can't sit there and watch one die because of habitat destruction from people like you can a coyote killing one right in front of you. But your missing the point, when there's less habitat and less cover that is when predators shine and can easily kill there prey . Pheasants are a prime example here of what happens when you ruin the habitat and predators can be 100% because of it. Predation is a secondary cause not the primary one.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Perhaps there is a difference between a induced bird such as a pheasant and a native bird like the gunnison sage grouse.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Primary or secondary it's the issue that can and should be addressed before you take and slam humans. Because you can't get rid of humans. So close off all the lands to save the grouse and don't address predation and we will still loose the grouse eventually.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> Primary or secondary it's the issue that can and should be addressed before you take and slam humans. Because you can't get rid of humans. So close off all the lands to save the grouse and don't address predation and we will still loose the grouse eventually.


I'm not looking to get rid of people, I'm saying use decent practices that don't ruin everything around us. What should be addressed is the primary concern and the secondary one won't be an issue. Good habitat , prey , and predators were always ment to exhist . If we 'll still lose the grouse then rest assure that no matter what we do eventually you'll watch the mule deer fade into oblivion as well that depends on very much the same habitat . Excusing species one at a time in the name of development whether it be energy, housing, or something else is unacceptable, but it's happening.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sure you want to get rid of humans. I hope not literally. But the first thing you want to do is look to cut access cut tags charge more money arrest and shame others around you. Just read your posts. 

Some a hole shot your deer. Twice (shame) 

Some a holes are up on Monroe shooting your spike. 
(Cut tags) 

Some a hole is hunting for sheds scaring your deer and causing them to loose fat. (Restrict access) 

Some a hole rancher shot some elk. (Arrest) 

The a hole farmers and land owners mismanage lands for pheasant. (Charge hunters more and use the money to bribe landowners) 

Some a hole wants to ruin sage grouse habitat. (Restrict access)

Oil and gas a holes come in suck the ground dry and leave a moon scape behind. 
(Restrict access)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> What should be addressed is the primary concern and the secondary one won't be an issue. Good habitat , prey , and predators were always ment to exhist . If we 'll still lose the grouse then rest assure that no matter what we do eventually you'll watch the mule deer fade into oblivion as well that depends on very much the same habitat.


Where do millions of hunters fit into things "ment to exist"? Hunters essentially serve as predators to prey. Are you trying to achieve a wildlife tapestry that is like what was here before white man got here? If so that tapestry does not allow for very much hunting at all. Probably similar to what the Navajo Shoshone and Ute harvested presettlement. Better get rid of the pheasant and all the other non native species in Utah.

Good habitat or not we have gone "unnatural" as some would say. And there is no way we could get back. So in trying to do so and taking from hunters IMO is a flawed mentality resulting in assisting anti hunting agendas. You just can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

As a species mule deer nowhere by any scientific standard are endangered or in trouble. 

But mule deer hunting is endangered or in trouble everywhere. 

Over 150,000 deer are being killed per year in Utah. But only 30,000 of them are hunter harvests. Approx 10,000 by cars. I'm sure some are thinking that the other 100,000+ deer are starving to death. But a vast majority of them are indeed getting killed by cougar and coyote. Like almost all of them. We can and should effect that number for the benefit of hunters.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

^^^^ ha ha I pulled a LT. 

That's kinda embarrassing.


----------



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

Iron Bear in no way do I want no access, I want wise access. You don't need a road every 20 yards on a winter or fawning range, it overly-disturbes deer and elk. In a lot of areas "acess" of 20 roads to the same place could be cut down to 2-3 and it still be just as accessible and enjoyed.

As for mule deer, we've got $5 a tag going towards your cause so well see if it works, but look at population numbers of mule deer throughout all there range over time, they're heading down. It's where we were, to where we are , to where we'll be in 30 years if the trend continues. For you and me, we won't see the end of the mule deer in our life but a generation down the road may never have the enjoyment of it. It's got a ton stacking up against it and more and more as years go by. You want more deer, sage grouse, elk, moose, then you better improve, conserve and protect habitat because predator control is second to that . I understand your thought process is that the deer a coyote or cougar killed could have been killed by a hunter, but displacing 1,000 deer by ruining a utilized winter range has far greater affects in the amount of deer your gonna have coming your way for the future .


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

To comment on the impact that oil & gas development will have - unless you work in this industry and deal with the BLM on a regular basis, I suggest opinions be based on actual fact and not speculation. Trust me, new wells are put on and in areas where these sensitive environments are impacted the least. It's easy to say that new technologies can allow for the extraction with minimal impact -true to a point. But, the more technical or extravagant the well design and the cost of the wellpad is, the worse the profitability will be. You can't have a warm house and drive a truck for free. The more expensive the well is, the lower the desire to drill and extract the minerals. 'Saving the Planet' is something you do when life is good. When life is tough, survival of the fittest trumps the saving of a species...

Does this mean we should not be prudent? Absolutely not, however, at what cost...? Remeber that cost is really any and all foregone opportunities.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> To comment on the impact that oil & gas development will have - unless you work in this industry and deal with the BLM on a regular basis, I suggest opinions be based on actual fact and not speculation. Trust me, new wells are put on and in areas where these sensitive environments are impacted the least. It's easy to say that new technologies can allow for the extraction with minimal impact -true to a point. But, the more technical or extravagant the well design and the cost of the wellpad is, the worse the profitability will be. You can't have a warm house and drive a truck for free. The more expensive the well is, the lower the desire to drill and extract the minerals. 'Saving the Planet' is something you do when life is good. When life is tough, survival of the fittest trumps the saving of a species...
> 
> Does this mean we should not be prudent? Absolutely not, however, at what cost...? Remeber that cost is really any and all foregone opportunities.


You are right. Who cares? It is profit vs the environment. Drill baby, drill.

.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Over 150,000 deer are being killed per year in Utah. But only 30,000 of them are hunter harvests. Approx 10,000 by cars. I'm sure some are thinking that the other 100,000+ deer are starving to death. But a vast majority of them are indeed getting killed by cougar and coyote. Like almost all of them. We can and should effect that number for the benefit of hunters.


You are right. Who cares? It is my personal hunting opportunities vs. the environment. Kill baby, kill.


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> To comment on the impact that oil & gas development will have - unless you work in this industry and deal with the BLM on a regular basis, I suggest opinions be based on actual fact and not speculation. Trust me, new wells are put on and in areas where these sensitive environments are impacted the least. It's easy to say that new technologies can allow for the extraction with minimal impact -true to a point. But, the more technical or extravagant the well design and the cost of the wellpad is, the worse the profitability will be. You can't have a warm house and drive a truck for free. The more expensive the well is, the lower the desire to drill and extract the minerals. 'Saving the Planet' is something you do when life is good. When life is tough, survival of the fittest trumps the saving of a species...
> 
> Does this mean we should not be prudent? Absolutely not, however, at what cost...? Remeber that cost is really any and all foregone opportunities.


Yeah of course someone involved with drilling would make excuses and ignore better ways of doing things, heck it might cost them a little off the billions made at $3 a gallon. Excuses and BS don't excuse the fact there's always improvements to be made . Oil and gas don't do any more than they are required to do . Excuses doesn't make it excusable to destroy populations of things. Well pads costing more is laughable, they'll just add it to the price per gallon to make it up , I don't feel bad for the billions a year oil and gas industry, it's coming out of mine and everyone else's pocket.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I've worked oil and gas, coal, paper, and chemical business for over 45 years, especially natural gas. I don't feel sorry for them in the least bit.

The stories I could tell.


.


----------



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

> Trust me, new wells are put on and in areas where these sensitive environments are impacted the least.


If this were true population wouldn't be struggling in every area where oil & gas are. But adding some humor to this thread was nice of you . I've seen wells pop up in the most important of mule deer and elk winter range , and watched there cute little excavators drive through winter ranges pushing deer and elk all over during winter , better erase your lie.


----------

