Save the wolf - but kill the eagle?

[putm2sleep]

What say you?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration said Friday it will allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty, an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its environmental consequences.

The change, requested by the wind energy industry, will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects for which companies obtain a permit and make efforts to avoid killing the birds.

An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. The White House has championed wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan.

 

[MT_elk]

I just saw this today also. Just another one of the crazy things coming from Obama.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It ain't right. Industry should step up and get their mitigation in place before asking for exemptions to slaughter the national bird.

I see this no differently than an O&G company looking for exemptions on winter range for mule deer: Live up to your rhetoric and be a good steward of the public resources you're profiting off of.

 

[1_pointer]

Removing a few golden's in certain places would probably help the sage grouse there...

 

[shoots-straight]

Removing a few golden's in certain places would probably help the sage grouse there...

Goats, lopes, and sheep as well.

What are the numbers? Anyone.

 

[Bambistew]

I remember reading a study on deer relating to eagle deaths in UT I think it was. It was a pretty low percentage from what I recall 5-10%. Sheep and goats are generally a lot higher because they just have to knock them off a ledge.

Currently there are two on-going study for dall sheep here in the Chugache being done by a friend of mine. So far the results indicate predation accounts for about 1/2 of deaths in lambs, of that about 10-30%+/- percent are from golden eagles.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/s...p/pdfs/chugach_range_dalls_sheep_research.pdf

 

[Ben Lamb]

Removing a few golden's in certain places would probably help the sage grouse there...

Got any studies to back that up?

BTW - I've seen goldens take out coyotes. So - fewer goldens, more coyotes?

 

[shoots-straight]

Got any studies to back that up?

BTW - I've seen goldens take out coyotes. So - fewer goldens, more coyotes?

I don't know where the link to the study is, but there seems to one.

However, current research is revealing a new trend that may also have a negative effect on sage grouse: rising raptor populations. During a study conducted in southwest and southcentral Wyoming, biologists from Utah State University and the University of Wyoming found that sage grouse sought out nest and brood rearing locations with low densities of avian predators, such as golden eagles, magpies, and ravens. The biologists identified Golden Eagles as the main predator of adult sage grouse, and Black-billed Magpies and Common Ravens as predators of sage grouse nests according to a publication of The American Ornithologists’ Union. Furthermore, they concluded, “… as avian predators, especially ravens, increase in abundance in sage grouse habitat, high-quality nesting and brood rearing habitat will become more limited.”

http://www.tsln.com/news/7796716-113/grouse-sage-populations-habitat

Like our mule deer, all things add up.

 

[mtmiller]

Predation is often identified as a potential factor affecting sage-grouse populations, which is understandable given the suite of predators that prey on sage-grouse from egg to adulthood (though no predators specialize on sage-grouse). Predator management has been effective on local scales for short periods, but its efficacy over broad ranges or over long timespans has not been demonstrated (Hagen 2011a). In areas of compromised habitats and high populations of synanthropic predators (predators that live near, and benefit from, an association with humans), predator control may be effective to ensure sage-grouse persistence until habitat conditions improve.

Though threats such as infectious diseases and predation may be significant at a localized level, particularly if habitat quantity and quality is compromised, they were not identified by FWS as significant range-wide threats in our 2010 warranted finding (75 FR 13910).

Tyler, there was a study on the Deseret where 55% of the collared birds were predated by raptors, but I never saw what the sample size was (Danvir 2002). Since it was in UT, it was most likely shady.

There are plenty of threats to GSG, predation isn't way up there. I my part of the world the identified threats are grazing, energy development and infrastructure.

 

[Ben Lamb]

In other words: It's the habitat, stupid.

 

[A-con]

Now that gives me an idea. Maybe we could put a few of those wind turbines down at ground level, and put some elk gut piles in between them.

 

[1_pointer]

Predation is often identified as a potential factor affecting sage-grouse populations, which is understandable given the suite of predators that prey on sage-grouse from egg to adulthood (though no predators specialize on sage-grouse). Predator management has been effective on local scales for short periods, but its efficacy over broad ranges or over long timespans has not been demonstrated (Hagen 2011a). In areas of compromised habitats and high populations of synanthropic predators (predators that live near, and benefit from, an association with humans), predator control may be effective to ensure sage-grouse persistence until habitat conditions improve.

Though threats such as infectious diseases and predation may be significant at a localized level, particularly if habitat quantity and quality is compromised, they were not identified by FWS as significant range-wide threats in our 2010 warranted finding (75 FR 13910).

Tyler, there was a study on the Deseret where 55% of the collared birds were predated by raptors, but I never saw what the sample size was (Danvir 2002). Since it was in UT, it was most likely shady.

There are plenty of threats to GSG, predation isn't way up there. I my part of the world the identified threats are grazing, energy development and infrastructure.

The bolded part was where I got my info as I was also on Deseret during that time frame doing research. An interesting side note, Deseret does no coyote control on the ranch. It was Danvir's contention that the coyotes kept the jackrabbit and prairie dog populations suppressed enough to keep a few raptors away, which he concluded was good for sage grouse. Funny how different threats pop up for the same species depending on the area. Grazing and energy developments are not an issue for sage grouse where Danvir worked and maybe that's why predation was a bigger issue there...

In other words: It's the habitat, stupid.

Yep and Danvir would agree. The fly in the oinment is what constitutes good habitat. Due in large part to Danvir's efforts, sage grouse habitat on Deseret is in great shape and getting better by the year. However, what they have done there many don't want to see done on public lands. I think largely due to ignorance but also due in large part to that fact that these manipulations are good for livestock as well, at least locally. They kill lots of sagebrush to help out the sage grouse. It's his conclusion that scale and timing are a important aspects in designing vegetation treatments for sage grouse in his area. He preferred lots of smaller scale treatments to emphasize edge. When killing sagebrush, they also found out that fall treatments favored grass and spring treatments forbs. Therefore they could create a mosaic not only in space but also a mosiac of what grew back after the treatment. Another aside, Deseret doesn't really pay attention to the "Connelly Guidelines" as they have found them to not really be all that useful there. They have A LOT of sage grouse on the ranch...

 

[putm2sleep]

In other words: It's the habitat, stupid.

This....hahahaha

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ran in to some Sage Grouse guys last night and the question of habitat v/predators came up. Consensus was that SG were born to be eaten, like most upland birds. Predation has never seemed to be a limiting factor so much as habitat quality.

They were quick to point out 100 plus years of intensive sheep grazing and the effect on forbs & sage brush steppe ecosystems.

I'm all for mechanical treatment if it makes sense. How we pay for it is gonna be a fairly difficult conversation to have with Congress though.

 

[WyOpitz]

Those golden Eagles have decimated the antelope population on my father-in-law's place. I've seen it first hand one time but he has seen several fawns taken by those damn birds. I'm guessing they probably eat a few sage grouse too. Bottom line is that too many of ANY predator can be a bad thing. It's just funny the wind farms get a pass but the oil guys get hammered over a horny-toad or some rare grasshopper. Follow the money...

 

[mtmiller]

....oil guys get hammered over a horny-toad or some rare grasshopper. Follow the money...

Could you be more specific for me? thanks....

 

[1_pointer]

Ran in to some Sage Grouse guys last night and the question of habitat v/predators came up. Consensus was that SG were born to be eaten, like most upland birds. Predation has never seemed to be a limiting factor so much as habitat quality.

They were quick to point out 100 plus years of intensive sheep grazing and the effect on forbs & sage brush steppe ecosystems.

I'm all for mechanical treatment if it makes sense. How we pay for it is gonna be a fairly difficult conversation to have with Congress though.

I don't disagree that habitat, both amount and quality, is a bigger limiting factor for sage grouse populations than predation. Hope my posts were not coming across that way as is not my thoughts or experience. However, in some places, such as Deseret where Danvir worked, where that is not a problem I do think it is appropriate to take a look into predation.

Interesting that you bring up sheep grazing. Reason I say that, is that the research I did was looking into how to manage sheep grazing to improve habitat conditions for sage grouse. It took a bit of tweaking, but we were able to get the vegetation results we wanted. We were able to show a reduction in sagebrush with a corresponding increase in grass and forb production. This is what the biologists wanted to see! Yes, I admit that the results are probably more important locally than in MT. Where I worked, more often than not, the sheep only allotments had better sage grouse habitat than the cattle only allotments, but that was probably more due to the timing of grazing, IMO, than the type of livestock. Sage grouse have such a large distribution that what works or is needed in one area is often not needed or works in another. I think miller's and my experiences bear this out quite well...

At least for the BLM, I think there is already a fairly good funding mechanism in place with the Fuels and Wildland-Urban Interface programs. Don't know now, but as of 3-4 years ago they had a pretty sizable chunk of money to do vegetation work. I only really ran into two downsides with these programs; scale and location. The funds, especially WUI which was also the larger pot o' money, had pretty strict requirements on what types of lands could be treated. The scale issue was not so much with the funding, but with the managers and publics idea of what was acceptable. The authorizing officers I worked for preferred many smaller scale projects to reduce the chances of getting protested/appealed. Which mostly worked as we got very little interest on larger projects. However, postage stamp sized projects limit the effectiveness and drive the cost/acre up enough that it makes funding a bit harder.

That said, from my experience in one office, I do think if additional funding could be made available outside of the Fire program and their limitations some great strides could be made. The experience and equipment are available to get some good work done in meaningful sizes, just no money. Once proposed projects got to meaningful size I think you'd start seeing quite a bit more push back from "conservation" groups, which often ends up costing alot of money/time...

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I saw a first in over 60 years of hunting the second week of November when I was pheasant hunting out in southwest ND. There was a huge cut corn field adjacent to the public land we were hunting that had very thick cover that was being hunted pretty frequently. We were behind my DD one morning in that cover when a Golden swooped down over that corn field and over 100 pheasants took off and headed for the heavy cover allowing my dog to point a number of them for us to shoot. That Golden made a second pass and a bunch more birds got up heading for the heavy cover we were in, but evidently one stayed on the ground and the eagle went down in and never came back out. I hope it took a rooster because hens are illegal to harvest!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those golden Eagles have decimated the antelope population on my father-in-law's place. I've seen it first hand one time but he has seen several fawns taken by those damn birds. I'm guessing they probably eat a few sage grouse too. Bottom line is that too many of ANY predator can be a bad thing. It's just funny the wind farms get a pass but the oil guys get hammered over a horny-toad or some rare grasshopper. Follow the money...

A 60% reduction in the mule deer herd that used to winter in the Pinedale Anticline tells a different story. That decline was brought about by elimination of winter drilling stips.

Same for Sage Grouse and O&G drilling too close to leks despite what the science says.

Same thing with all the of the Categorical Exclusions the industry received and the latest bill to strip public oversight of the permitting & drilling on public lands.

O&G gets plenty of exemptions from stuff like this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't disagree that habitat, both amount and quality, is a bigger limiting factor for sage grouse populations than predation. Hope my posts were not coming across that way as is not my thoughts or experience. However, in some places, such as Deseret where Danvir worked, where that is not a problem I do think it is appropriate to take a look into predation.

Interesting that you bring up sheep grazing. Reason I say that, is that the research I did was looking into how to manage sheep grazing to improve habitat conditions for sage grouse. It took a bit of tweaking, but we were able to get the vegetation results we wanted. We were able to show a reduction in sagebrush with a corresponding increase in grass and forb production. This is what the biologists wanted to see! Yes, I admit that the results are probably more important locally than in MT. Where I worked, more often than not, the sheep only allotments had better sage grouse habitat than the cattle only allotments, but that was probably more due to the timing of grazing, IMO, than the type of livestock. Sage grouse have such a large distribution that what works or is needed in one area is often not needed or works in another. I think miller's and my experiences bear this out quite well...

At least for the BLM, I think there is already a fairly good funding mechanism in place with the Fuels and Wildland-Urban Interface programs. Don't know now, but as of 3-4 years ago they had a pretty sizable chunk of money to do vegetation work. I only really ran into two downsides with these programs; scale and location. The funds, especially WUI which was also the larger pot o' money, had pretty strict requirements on what types of lands could be treated. The scale issue was not so much with the funding, but with the managers and publics idea of what was acceptable. The authorizing officers I worked for preferred many smaller scale projects to reduce the chances of getting protested/appealed. Which mostly worked as we got very little interest on larger projects. However, postage stamp sized projects limit the effectiveness and drive the cost/acre up enough that it makes funding a bit harder.

That said, from my experience in one office, I do think if additional funding could be made available outside of the Fire program and their limitations some great strides could be made. The experience and equipment are available to get some good work done in meaningful sizes, just no money. Once proposed projects got to meaningful size I think you'd start seeing quite a bit more push back from "conservation" groups, which often ends up costing alot of money/time...

Good stuff. I would say, however, the CBD and most of the serial litigants are not conservation groups. They're just A-holes.

As for predators: I remain highly skeptical that intensive management of predators does any good in the long run. When we start to talk about management of eagles, then we lose all public support except for the folks who think that 1080 was a good idea. You can mitigate predation through habitat management, which pays much higher yeilds in the long run.

Killing one species to benefit another works in somewhat closed systems like fisheries, but it's still expensive. Taking that type of management to open country is a recipe for continued gov't waste, IMO.