# Our Hunting Lands Threatened?



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Got and email from Big Game Forever. There is a bill about Sage Grouse Habitat and them being on the endangered species list.

Here is a link if you are interested or know more about it and can comment on it.

http://view.s6.exacttarget.com/?j=f...e7311&jb=ff981576&ju=fe5915777d61017f7613&r=0

I put it in big game since they feel it endangers our hunting land for big game and it will be viewed by more.

"Why is this bill important to hunters? Powerful anti-hunting groups want to control the heart of elk and mule deer hunting in America. That's why activist groups have been attempting to force federal control of wolves, Sage-grouse AND THEIR HABITAT."


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I think there are a lot of people being proactive in conservation efforts to avoid listing without all the scare tactics. I also think that the land transfer issue bears more of a threat to our lands for hunting. I would rather have federal ownership restricting access to protect wildlife than private interest completely shutting off access to protect $$$.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The sage grouse thing isn't about shutting out hunting at all. It is about shutting down domestic oil and gas production, and the associated fracking that is part of it. Sage grouse are to the oil and gas industry, what the spotted owl was to logging industry in the 80s and 90s.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> The sage grouse thing isn't about shutting out hunting at all. It is about shutting down domestic oil and gas production, and the associated fracking that is part of it. Sage grouse are to the oil and gas industry, what the spotted owl was to logging industry in the 80s and 90s.


They will also hurt ranching and access on public lands during certain times of the year.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I'm not worried. We have Ryan Benson in our corner! He got wolves delisted and will stop this dead in its tracks.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

martymcfly73 said:


> I'm not worried. We have Ryan Benson in our corner! He got wolves delisted and will stop this dead in its tracks.


I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, you should read how SFW/BGF actually acted about wolf delisting and which side of the fence they were on. I also recommend you brush up on the Press Release specifically about SFW from other Conservation Orgs referencing the wolf fight.

Sage Grouse being listed under the ESA is not nearly as big of a threat as the Land Grab fraud is to the future of hunting.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

grizzly said:


> I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, you should read how SFW/BGF actually acted about wolf delisting and which side of the fence they were on. I also recommend you brush up on the Press Release specifically about SFW from other Conservation Orgs referencing the wolf fight.
> 
> Sage Grouse being listed under the ESA is not nearly as big of a threat as the Land Grab fraud is to the future of hunting.


I'm being very sarcastic. The guy is fraud. All we did was buy him a better car with our tax dollars.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I have a question I have asked multiple people on this, and have yet to get an answer. Taking only the hunting aspect into play, let me set the stage with some background. 

The state claims that if the sage grouse gets listed it will impact the state's economy to the effect of around $20 billion and 200,000 future jobs. So here's the question:

What does the state plan to do in sage grouse habitat that will result in 200,000 jobs and $20 billion in revenue? And exactly how are those activities going to benefit me as a hunter? 

The listing of sage grouse probably will impact some areas. Some road closures, etc. are possible. However, it will NOT, in my opinion, close off any access for hunting. But 200,000 jobs very well could. Just sayin...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

You want a rebound in sage grouse, just allow 1 well per 1,000 grouse. I guarantee big oil will breed up a million of them and turn them loose.


-DallanC


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

tallbuck said:


> They will also hurt ranching and access on public lands during certain times of the year.


Man I feel bad for those cattlemen how are they going to afford diesel in there 70k dollar truck. Public access is a concern bur ranchers not so much after the crying about elk herds


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

All I Have to Say Is FUBAR Not going to let the cat out of the bag. But I have seen more Sage Chickens in the last 6 years than I've seen in 20.yrs. SOOO put this on the endangered list..Along With The Most Important Thing in Our life time "" Global Warming and Climate Change"". WOW!! Where have I heard That??Don't Hunt.. Don't Frack.And lets get George Looney Tunes and Matt Damon to make the movie.. Invasion or Decline of the SAGE CHICKENS. RATED HORSE CRAP!!


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> I think there are a lot of people being proactive in conservation efforts to avoid listing without all the scare tactics. I also think that the land transfer issue bears more of a threat to our lands for hunting. I would rather have federal ownership restricting access to protect wildlife than private interest completely shutting off access to protect $$$.


Not sure what scare tactics you're refering to. The only scare tactic BS I see is that propaganda BS filled email Benson is sending out.

bowgy, If you don't want Benson sending you those stupid emails, send him an email telling him to stop sending you that crap. That's what I did.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

blackdog said:


> Not sure what scare tactics you're refering to. The only scare tactic BS I see is that propaganda BS filled email Benson is sending out.
> 
> bowgy, If you don't want Benson sending you those stupid emails, send him an email telling him to stop sending you that crap. That's what I did.


That's the scare tactic I was referring to. Give us your money so we can fight against (insert species here) or else there will be no place and no wildlife left to hunt.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

TS30, here's your 200,000 jobs.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Not sure what scare tactics you're refering to. The only scare tactic BS I see is that propaganda BS filled email Benson is sending out.
> 
> bowgy, If you don't want Benson sending you those stupid emails, send him an email telling him to stop sending you that crap. That's what I did.


Yeah, I don't know much about BGF, never had the time to mess with them, that is why I posted it here to get some other views and information on the subject.

I do appreciate the replies and opinions that have been expressed.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

blackdog said:


> ts30, here's your 200,000 jobs.


Exactly!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

TS30 does bring up an excellent point though. ESA listing of the sage grouse would be devastating to the oil and gas industries that are drilling in sage steppe environments. However, these are also, or were, great mule deer habitats. The revenue loss of $20 billion I don't doubt, but I do doubt the 200,000 jobs. There certainly are NOT 200,000 O&G jobs in Utah right now. In fact, since the Saudis dropped the price of crude, several of my friends that have been employed out in the Basin in the O&G industry have been laid off. It is part of a boom/bust cycle of that industry. The big boom in North Dakota has leveled off and jobs are leaving as quick as they came to that part of the country. 

But the sage grouse are just the poster child for the sage ecosystems. Populations have and will continue to fluctuate along with drought cycles and fire practices in sage communities. It always has been, and always will be. But seeing entire swaths of land (think the Jona and Anticline Fields outside of Pinedale, WY or out in the Uinta Basin) are eaten up in basically one continuous drill pad - and that is why wildland advocates are looking for something to curtail that kind of habitat transformation. The assertion of habitat fragmentation due to the web of roads is pretty hard to refute, even for the biggest critics.

To me though, I don't see the fragmentation as the biggest issue related to the O&G development. To me, the biggest issue is not the direct impact of fragmentation, but the induced impact of altered fire management in developed O&G areas. Fragmentation can be mitigated to an extent through passage zones, changes in pad density, road recovery practices, and buffers around leks. However, wildfire management is a much bigger issue. Healthy sage steppe is fire dependent, and needs a fire interval of about 15-20 years to really work. So fire needs to be a regular part of the sage environments. But with billions of dollars of O&G assets out there, and assets that will turn into a blow torch, do you really think the FS and BLM are going to "let it burn"? Not a chance. And without regular fire, you don't get multiple age class plants, resulting in a mono-age situation. This is DEVASTATING to mule deer, pronghorn, sage grouse, any any other critter than depends on the sage environment to thrive. 

And this leads to the land grab issue. BLM and the FS can let a few thousand acres burn here and there every year. It is good for the entire system when that happens. But it only works when whole valleys, mountains, or watersheds can be viewed in context. If that is subdivided into 5, 20, 100, even 1,000 acre parcels for the selling, each of those buyers cannot afford to let those acres burn. The land can no longer be managed in a larger context, but each owner of the 1,000 acre parcel must look out for their own. And any kind of remaining eco-context is completely lost. 

And it is that kind of habitat loss/fragmentation/transformation that IS happening now, that causes those that want to stop it, to push for invoking the ESA in some attempt to stop it. It isn't about the sage grouse right now. It is about seeing what we are doing on a larger scale and saying "holy crap. What are we doing to ourselves?"

I think as generally politically conservative outdoorsmen types, we are in an interesting spot. The party that backs less government, our right to carry guns, and private property rights is also the party that chants "drill baby drill". While the party that tends towards greater environmental protections leans towards increased government control of everything from our guns to our 4wd trucks. As an outdoorsman, I feel like a political refugee. 

Which leads me to ask the question - anyone want to re-ignite TR's Bull Moose Party?


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> TS30 does bring up an excellent point though. ESA listing of the sage grouse would be devastating to the oil and gas industries that are drilling in sage steppe environments. However, these are also, or were, great mule deer habitats. The revenue loss of $20 billion I don't doubt, but I do doubt the 200,000 jobs. There certainly are NOT 200,000 O&G jobs in Utah right now. In fact, since the Saudis dropped the price of crude, several of my friends that have been employed out in the Basin in the O&G industry have been laid off. It is part of a boom/bust cycle of that industry. The big boom in North Dakota has leveled off and jobs are leaving as quick as they came to that part of the country.
> 
> But the sage grouse are just the poster child for the sage ecosystems. Populations have and will continue to fluctuate along with drought cycles and fire practices in sage communities. It always has been, and always will be. But seeing entire swaths of land (think the Jona and Anticline Fields outside of Pinedale, WY or out in the Uinta Basin) are eaten up in basically one continuous drill pad - and that is why wildland advocates are looking for something to curtail that kind of habitat transformation. The assertion of habitat fragmentation due to the web of roads is pretty hard to refute, even for the biggest critics.
> 
> ...


Gary, you are a smart guy. You capture my sentiments exactly. I'm a pretty apolitical person and I can't stand all the political grandstanding by politicians and conservation (or so-called hunting) groups. Many just toe the party line (and you all know who I am referring to), regardless of whether it is in the best interest of hunters or wildlife.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> I think as generally politically conservative outdoorsmen types, we are in an interesting spot. The party that backs less government, our right to carry guns, and private property rights is also the party that chants "drill baby drill" (and the land grab). While the party that tends towards greater environmental protections leans towards increased government control of everything from our guns to our 4wd trucks. As an outdoorsman, I feel like a political refugee.
> 
> Which leads me to ask the question - anyone want to re-ignite TR's Bull Moose Party?


Word! I couldn't describe my current political sentiments any better.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> TS30 does bring up an excellent point though. ESA listing of the sage grouse would be devastating to the oil and gas industries that are drilling in sage steppe environments. However, these are also, or were, great mule deer habitats. The revenue loss of $20 billion I don't doubt, but I do doubt the 200,000 jobs. There certainly are NOT 200,000 O&G jobs in Utah right now. In fact, since the Saudis dropped the price of crude, several of my friends that have been employed out in the Basin in the O&G industry have been laid off. It is part of a boom/bust cycle of that industry. The big boom in North Dakota has leveled off and jobs are leaving as quick as they came to that part of the country.
> 
> But the sage grouse are just the poster child for the sage ecosystems. Populations have and will continue to fluctuate along with drought cycles and fire practices in sage communities. It always has been, and always will be. But seeing entire swaths of land (think the Jona and Anticline Fields outside of Pinedale, WY or out in the Uinta Basin) are eaten up in basically one continuous drill pad - and that is why wildland advocates are looking for something to curtail that kind of habitat transformation. The assertion of habitat fragmentation due to the web of roads is pretty hard to refute, even for the biggest critics.
> 
> ...


Good post Mr. fish, sums it up nicely for me as well...


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

And then you throw in a conservative outdoorsman that is employed in the O&G industry. Talk about between a rock and a hard place. I've seen my old hunting haunts and "hotspots" make way to a natural gas well. I've also seen how a community and local economy thrives because of it. Right now, it ain't real pretty for a lot of people. I've been fortunate to this point.

Even though we all need to be prudent stewards of the landscape/environment/ecosystem or whatever you want to call it, there also needs to be some common sense. The vast human population we have today depends on energy, and a lot of it. "Green Energy" as it is called, technologically, just isn't there yet. So, until it is, the sage grouse, mule deer, antelope and whatever else will be held in a balance between what society needs and wants. When it comes down to lavish comforts, unfortunately, wildlife will get the short end of the stick, per se. If anyone is curious of what society would look like on wind and solar energy, take a peek at life in the 18th century, that is the technology we have today (after fossil fuel energy makes the devices first)...

The sage grouse isn't just UT. It's other western states as well and it just happens to be in O&G development areas. It's a political cue word to attack an industry deemed dirty and greedy mostly because of the scarred landscape and big paying jobs. The increased activity levels occur largly on private held land/minerals. Trust me, Fed land/Fed minerals just ain't giving out many drilling permits - they are not 'Fracking' permits either. When you do get a federal APD, it costs a lot of money to get the landscape back to its original state *WHILE* the well is producing. Environmental controls imposed on emissions cost a lot of money. Are these things bad?? Absolutely not! The evil depiction of O&G development isn't the 3 headed monster it is painted to be. A 10,000' horizontal lateral takes the place of many, many wellpads. The 'new' horizontal 'fracking' technology does more good for the environment then the wackos will have you believe.

Until there is a drastic decline in population or a significant increase in energy technology, O&G development in the volume that it is will be around for awhile. Which scenario would you choose?

And, for the record, it isn't 'fracking' it's frac'ing.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Good post High Desert Elk. In my career, some of those most interested in protecting the environment while extracting energy resources are those in the extraction industry. And much is done. I also think much has been learned in the last 15 years since the Jona and Anticline fields were developed. 

But to your argument that "green" energies really just use 18th century technologies is a bit misleading. On that same level, use of fossil fuels to generate electricity really hasn't changed either then, since it is simply using fossil fuel fire to heat water in order to turn electric generating turbines. Sure, we get more electricity per BTU than we used to, and we've come up with better ways to harvest fossil fuels, but really, we are just burning them to heat water to turn generators. Frac'ing is one of those ways to get more fuel out of the ground and that's all.

Personally, I'm still up in the air on the fracking (  ) thing. I've read a ton on both sides of the whole issue and try as I might, I am still unsure on the good/bad thing. In a very overly (and possibly incorrect) simplified view, it takes usable water, and makes it unusable. And where we are in a down cycle of supply of usable water, that may not be bad, but it certainly isn't good. Of course, much of the frac'ing is happening in areas where using water for it really has no significant local impact so in a bigger picture, may not be a big deal. Which is the kind of thing that has me not coming down on either side at this point. 

But the thing in your post I absolutely think is spot on and we have to really consider as outdoorsmen, heck, as people. Is if we consciously think about the impacts of our lifestyle choices, would we make those same choices? How much air pollution are we going to suck through our lungs before we support tighter emission controls? Will we be willing to pay $10/gallon of gas, if it means that we can have prime mule deer habitats and hunting experiences? If we paid the same rate for landscaping water that we pay for bottled water, would we still have city ordinances on the Wasatch Front that DEMAND we have irrigated turfs and landscaping?


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Freaking>>Fracking. Type O> What ever. Whos the largest contributor to filthy air in the world..The US? Nope. Until all the countries get it together and clean up their acts, What we need to do is build a dome over the USA.. If we end up paying 10.00 a gallon for gas. State of Utah will take 5.00 of it in taxes,When I heard this new gas tax is to pay for Roads and Bridges. Well I almost fell over backwards..I think thats what we heard when we laid out 17 Quad Zillion out there. Freaking Or Fracking ?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

PS: I'm mildly curious how many people here get that... 

-DallanC


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Bucksnort1 said:


> Freaking>>Fracking. Type O> What ever. Whos the largest contributor to filthy air in the world..The US? Nope. Until all the countries get it together and clean up their acts, What we need to do is build a dome over the USA.. ?


Thing is, it isn't industrial pollution from China or Mexico or Pakistan or Brazil that makes the Wasatch Front a horrible place to breath for about 6 months out of the year.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Thing is, it isn't industrial pollution from China or Mexico or Pakistan or Brazil that makes the Wasatch Front a horrible place to breath for about 6 months out of the year.


Early pioneers documented inversions in the winter long before we industrialized the place. Its the nature of the geography... industry and pollution can make it worse, but if you waved a magic wand and got rid of all the pollution we'd still have the inversion.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Early pioneers documented inversions in the winter long before we industrialized the place. Its the nature of the geography... industry and pollution can make it worse, but if you waved a magic wand and got rid of all the pollution we'd still have the inversion.
> 
> -DallanC


Easy solution, get rid of the people then there would be no one to notice it.


----------



## wisconsinvette (May 18, 2013)

DallanC said:


> PS: I'm mildly curious how many people here get that...
> 
> -DallanC


Are you referring to Battlestar Galatica?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

First let me clarify, I suppose I posted it badly. If people only want wind and solar for energy (cause it's "clean" and renewable), they should look at life in the 18th century, because technology has not found a way to make it affordable and/or practical. Green energy just means that emissions are very low. My bad.

As far as the 'fracking' vs 'frac'ing' thing - frac'ing is the shortened form of hydraulic fracture stimulation (aka "hydro-fracking"). Frac'ing has been around since the '50s - I once met the man on the first frac job done in OK that operated the pump truck.

I agree, the whole frac'ing debate today is based on the large amounts of water used and the so called toxic chemicals in it (many by the way can also be found in food you eat). Mostly, the water comes from a source such as rivers, lakes, etc. Millions of gallons are used and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the regulators (and lawbreakers, I mean lawmakers) have not put the kibosh to it as many of these water sources are taken from the Ogallala aquifer (West TX for example) - a big water source for a lot of people.

Saying a species is endangered can certainly be true in some cases - as it applies to the loss of habitat for that species. Humans in general have encroached on the habitat to build residences, municipalities, etc. 

Frak as profanity is already used as the phrase 'Fricken Fracin'.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wisconsinvette said:


> Are you referring to Battlestar Galatica?


Bingo... lol






-DallanC


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

For 46 years I have derived a living off the oil and gas industry and other industries that are hell-bent to destroy our planet.

As soon as I retire I will hate fracking.

thank you





Why is this post in Big Game? Didn't this thread start out talking about sage grouse? This is a great thread but personally I wouldn't put it in Big Game to get more exposure. This time of year everyone is posting their tag draw stuff up, burying all the other threads in Big Game.

.


----------

