Do you support habitat protection on monuments if you can't hunt them?

[Jason Snyder]

Edit: Yes, I knew that. I just misspoke in my hurried attempt to post, cook supper, and shoot my bow all at the same time. :^)


Once again Jason, you missed mt real point. All birds of prey do better in open habitat. Young succession makes it harder for them to catch their prey. As the barred owl has moved west, many species have declined. Some no doubt due to loss of habitat. Others no doubt to the presence of competition or, the introduction of new predators.


So, with timber harvest specifications saying industry has to leave 40% of a timber stand around a known nesting pair, for better than a mile from that nest of spotted owls, how is it habitat caused their demise? Theoretically, the improved select harvest should have exploded their numbers. However, since 1990 their numbers have continued to drop. Why? Could it be the Barred owl is found at even higher numbers with the spotted owls range? It's the only constant in the equation of the spotted owl.


Since all birds of prey have been given a veil of protection from the federal government: Quail, grouse, squirrels, and many other prey species have dropped in population numbers. And, most of it is blamed on habitat. Where it no doubt has played a role in areas, how much of it truly lies with habitat loss? I truly don't know. Neither do the "scientists". But, there is one constant in all this. One will gain at another's expense. And, blaming a noble barred owl for the demise or reduction of an animal won't win nearly as many votes as blaming a dirty, greedy logger.



God Bless men

What point did I miss? Are you suggesting the clear cut practices of the 70's and 80's did not affect the Spotted Owls?

WRT to upland birds, I can tell you that raptors certainly factor into the equation. So do powerlines and other artificial perches in open country. Areas with good habitat and few powerlines still hold as many birds as I remember them holding 30 years ago.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

No, I was trying to show how exclusive or, inclusive science can be. Depending on the point that was trying to be made.

 

[Shrek]

Who said we needed to lock up half the west? Have you done any reading on the Sage Grouse conservation plan? It was fully designed to work within the parameters of multiple use, mitigating the impacts of energy development as best they could.

That plan wouldn't have made it to its first official review before it was scrapped. The sage grouse would have continued to decline and in the next version of the plan all the monument lands with sage grouse habitat would be locked down because there would be no multiple use requirements to meet. The original listing and plan was simply the camels nose into the tent. All of the land protection needed can be achieved under NF designation unless your real objective is to lock up all the federal land in the west to any commercial use and severely limit or ban consumptive uses like hunting and fishing also. I don't support giving a millionth of an inch of my hunting and fishing access nor do I support closing down all timber and fossil fuel development. I support timber cutting because it enhances game habitat. Mature forests are food and cover deserts for game.

 

[Jason Snyder]

That plan wouldn't have made it to its first official review before it was scrapped. The sage grouse would have continued to decline and in the next version of the plan all the monument lands with sage grouse habitat would be locked down because there would be no multiple use requirements to meet. The original listing and plan was simply the camels nose into the tent. All of the land protection needed can be achieved under NF designation unless your real objective is to lock up all the federal land in the west to any commercial use and severely limit or ban consumptive uses like hunting and fishing also. I don't support giving a millionth of an inch of my hunting and fishing access nor do I support closing down all timber and fossil fuel development. I support timber cutting because it enhances game habitat. Mature forests are food and cover deserts for game.

What do you mean the plan wouldn't have made it to it's first review? It was approved. If anything, I believe the reviews and changes Zinke requested and is advocating will assure that sage grouse populations continue their decline, but I won't automatically make that assumption. Neither should you in regard to the original plan. Don't you think we should give it time to work before declaring it a failure? Wyoming's Governor is a supporter of the current plan, and his state arguably has the highest stakes in this process.

Declining sage grouse numbers would be equally significant regardless of the land designation. In fact, it would likely be MORE significant on lands that were not designated national monuments, because the largest impacts are from energy development, fences, and road density. The current plan is based upon the protection of core habitat areas.

Energy development is mitigated by adding to or enhancing the core habitat areas. If protecting these core areas doesn't result in stabilized or increased bird populations, there is a very real risk of ESA listing of the sage groups. This ESA listing would not greatly impact monuments, but it would greatly impact grazing and energy development.

Your categorization of national monuments is broad brushed and inaccurate at best.

I support sound timber cutting practices also.