Toad - I am hardly a left winger, but I am going to ask, "Why is it that whenever someone points out the impacts of oil and gas on wildlife, you get all wound up? You in the oil and gas industry?"
Seems hard to argue against the mountains of data that show what has happened to mule deer in western Wyoming upon serious disruption of their winter range by oil and gas exploration. Same for what the biologists in western North Dakota are saying.
Not saying we don't all use/need oil and gas, but the data shows the impact it has. As hunters, if we don't advocate for better ways to extract it, who will? After all, historically hunters have seen it as our job to speak out on behalf of wildlife and habitat.
There are better ways to do it. The oil and gas industry claims there are good ways, but when you go to Wyoming, you don't see any of those supposed "wildlife-friendly" ideas in action. You just see site after site, stacked in like an industrial zone, with roads, pads, ponds, etc. in every square mile.
If, as you say, that is where most the biggest mulie bucks are these days, I believe you might be correct in Wyoming, given there are fewer and fewer public land places in Wyoming that are not heavily impacted by oil and gas. Where else would a mulie buck go to get away from it?
