I did an internet search, that's where I got the quote from. Increasing vulnerability is a pretty small problem. I was hoping you guys, who are supposed to be the experts, would give me the best study, or at least a good one. I'm thinking if you could communicate the magnitude of the problem you perceive to me, you could communicate it to someone like that Mont. Senator better. Kerasote couldn't even communicate with that senator, is what it read like to me. That's a problem.
You say there's science, then you say you find it, if I ask a question. If I was a senator, I'd say to hell with your argument also if that's all you did.
Your examples of economic feasibility are interesting and communicative and I thank you for them. The 80%-20% issue seems like something to work with. The roads don't take 80%, hence, development could still be managed, to get the gas and oil and still protect a lot of habitat. It seems pretty obvious as a counter argument to the problem of increased vunerability.
Are you saying there is research that shows elk can't live in cover near roads that are protected roads? Elk live in Yellowstone and its got roads, and they graize near them just fine.
Sure, the wildlife suffer, but not much, with the protected roads and controlled access. Isn't that what the non-wildlife people are thinking. How do you convince them otherwise?
Got any data? Is that what you tell a senator, go find it? You won't get anywhere that way.
I'll search for more, but I hope you guys become more communicative too. The problem does not seem big. What seems big about it to you, anything? You mentioned one dead bird in oil, that's a problem. When I compare it to all the oil and/or gas I imagine being pumped from that sight, when I consider we produce only 75% of the energy we use, the one dead bird seems like a small problem. Birds die anyway. You think there is a good study that shows the problem is big?
