Bad BLM
- Thread starter mtmiller
- Start date
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Could this yet be another evil Republican conspiracy?
Tom
New member
How'd that happen, it looks like the BLM didn't do their job according to that article and judge?
What are sage grouse populations sensitive too?
What are sage grouse populations sensitive too?
Tom, here are a few from the MT Sage-grouse Management Plan
Fire Management.— Benefits, detriments, and relative frequency of fire on sage grouse
habitats often are subjects of disagreement. Use of prescribed fire in the sagebrush
community can result in a net loss of sagebrush and concerns those desiring to maintain a
mature sagebrush community. Some land managers consider fire an effective tool to
manage sagebrush stands with dense sagebrush cover and suppressed herbaceous cover.
Both prescribed and wild fires can have cumulative effects on sagebrush habitat and
wildlife species that depend on it.
Grazing Management.—Many western rangelands were over-stocked with livestock in
the late-1800s and early 1900s, thus altering the composition and productivity of some
sagebrush and other vegetative communities. The effects of livestock on sage grouse
habitat, and on the birds, may be positive, negative, or neutral depending on the specific
grazing prescription and on the ecological site. To minimize the potential impact of
removing important understory vegetation, flexible grazing management programs need
to be planned and implemented while considering the needs of sage grouse. Research is
needed to identify and evaluate the effects of various grazing management plans on the
interaction of sage grouse, commodity production, and other societal values.
Harvest Management.— Sage grouse generally have the lowest average productivity rate
of any upland bird in Montana but also are one of the longest lived. Although some
believe that hunting is detrimental, the direct effects of hunting on sage grouse are still
small when compared to other forms of mortality. Topics of disagreement, however, go
beyond any direct effects. Some question why hunters may still pursue sage grouse while
use of rangeland resources could be restricted. Yet others believe that eliminating or
curtailing hunting only digresses from habitat issues, which are directly linked to the
species’ status. A strategy of adaptive harvest management should be implemented to
reduce uncertainty about the effects of harvest on sage grouse populations.
Noxious Weed Management.—Noxious weeds have spread across Montana at an
unprecedented rate. Landowners/managers have a statutory responsibility to develop
management plans for the treatment of noxious weeds on land they own and/or manage,
although the magnitude of weed infestations often prevents appropriate and timely
treatment. Noxious weeds displace more desirable native plant species and cause
significant adverse biological and economic effects by reducing productivity of healthy
rangeland. Chemical control of weeds is efficient although it poses some short-term
toxicological risk to sage grouse and other wildlife. Reduction of forbs important to sage
grouse during brood rearing could have more serious consequences, with the magnitude
of these effects dependent on the scale of treatment.
Mining and Energy Development.— Many of the nation’s oil and gas resources lie under
sage grouse habitats across the western U.S., from which development and production
activities could potentially affect sage grouse if habitats are lost, fragmented, or
degraded. Effects of oil and gas development on sage grouse are not extensively
documented, however, and long-term impacts after reclamation are not clearly
understood.
Outreach and Education.— Effective conservation of sage grouse requires collaboration
between federal and state land and wildlife managers, private landowners, tribal
governments, extension service, and other interests to develop and implement appropriate
regional protection strategies. Implementation of a Montana sage grouse conservation
plan requires a sound biological foundation. Most information about shrub-steppe
habitats and sage grouse is contained in technical manuscripts. However, conservation of
sage grouse and other sagebrush-associated species requires local involvement and userfriendly
information.
Power Lines and Generation Facilities.—Power lines provide additional hunting perches
for raptors in otherwise treeless areas. Power lines most likely impact grouse near leks, in
brood-rearing habitat, and in wintering areas that also support large numbers of wintering
raptors. Construction of new power lines contributes to habitat degradation when
accompanied by new roads or other infrastructure, e.g., pipelines, fences, etc. Utilities
commonly make power poles safe for raptors to use as perches, which poses a dilemma in
sage grouse habitat.
Predation.— The effects of predators on sage grouse populations and issues surrounding
predator control concern landowners, wildlife managers, and the public. Composition and
abundance of avian and mammalian predator populations have changed since termination
of widespread predator control in the early 1970s. Although many native mammals and
birds may prey upon sage grouse eggs, juveniles, or occasionally adults, grouse
populations cycle from lows to highs despite ongoing predation. Livestock producers
view a loss of livestock to predators as an economic loss, but they also perceive predators
as a threat. Wildlife managers view predators taking wildlife as an expected component
of natural mortality.
Recreational Disturbance.— Sage grouse may draw human recreational activities such as
viewing, monitoring, and photographing, to seasonally important habitats. Monitoring
sage grouse populations and habitats is essential at leks and other critical habitats.
Recreation and monitoring should be considered cumulatively as part of assessing
approaches for managing human disturbance of sage grouse.
Roads and Motorized Vehicles.— Roads and off-road travel can impact sage grouse and
their habitats in a variety of ways that include habitat fragmentation and loss and a
potential decline and/or shift in grouse populations. Vehicle use on federal, state, and
tribal lands, both on and off roads, has increased significantly over the past few years and
has impacted habitat quality. Severity of impacts may be directly related to the amount of
vehicle travel occurring.
Vegetation.— Past management of rangelands, including plowing, has altered the density,
structure, composition, and presence of sagebrush communities and has in some cases
created a variety of conditions that do not meet the desired condition described for sage
grouse seasonal needs. Restoring or enhancing sage grouse habitats requires diverse
strategies. Disagreements often arise regarding the ecological role, or successional
relationships, of “old” or “decadent” stands of sagebrush, the need to manipulate
sagebrush communities, method of control, and extent of treatment.
Managing Other Wildlife in Sage Grouse Habitat.— The effect of other species of native
herbivores, e.g., large ungulates and prairie dogs, on habitats that they share with sage
grouse may be problematic if intensive use and foraging degrades the quality of habitats
that grouse use for nesting and brood-rearing. Streamside riparian areas, springs, wet
meadows, and other mesic sites, which also attract other herbivores, become increasingly
important as the summer season progresses. Periods of drought often increase adverse
impacts. Successfully resolving or mitigating these potential conflicts with wild
herbivores depends on willingness of managers to objectively assess impacts that might
occur as a result of excessive herbivory and other land uses.
Fire Management.— Benefits, detriments, and relative frequency of fire on sage grouse
habitats often are subjects of disagreement. Use of prescribed fire in the sagebrush
community can result in a net loss of sagebrush and concerns those desiring to maintain a
mature sagebrush community. Some land managers consider fire an effective tool to
manage sagebrush stands with dense sagebrush cover and suppressed herbaceous cover.
Both prescribed and wild fires can have cumulative effects on sagebrush habitat and
wildlife species that depend on it.
Grazing Management.—Many western rangelands were over-stocked with livestock in
the late-1800s and early 1900s, thus altering the composition and productivity of some
sagebrush and other vegetative communities. The effects of livestock on sage grouse
habitat, and on the birds, may be positive, negative, or neutral depending on the specific
grazing prescription and on the ecological site. To minimize the potential impact of
removing important understory vegetation, flexible grazing management programs need
to be planned and implemented while considering the needs of sage grouse. Research is
needed to identify and evaluate the effects of various grazing management plans on the
interaction of sage grouse, commodity production, and other societal values.
Harvest Management.— Sage grouse generally have the lowest average productivity rate
of any upland bird in Montana but also are one of the longest lived. Although some
believe that hunting is detrimental, the direct effects of hunting on sage grouse are still
small when compared to other forms of mortality. Topics of disagreement, however, go
beyond any direct effects. Some question why hunters may still pursue sage grouse while
use of rangeland resources could be restricted. Yet others believe that eliminating or
curtailing hunting only digresses from habitat issues, which are directly linked to the
species’ status. A strategy of adaptive harvest management should be implemented to
reduce uncertainty about the effects of harvest on sage grouse populations.
Noxious Weed Management.—Noxious weeds have spread across Montana at an
unprecedented rate. Landowners/managers have a statutory responsibility to develop
management plans for the treatment of noxious weeds on land they own and/or manage,
although the magnitude of weed infestations often prevents appropriate and timely
treatment. Noxious weeds displace more desirable native plant species and cause
significant adverse biological and economic effects by reducing productivity of healthy
rangeland. Chemical control of weeds is efficient although it poses some short-term
toxicological risk to sage grouse and other wildlife. Reduction of forbs important to sage
grouse during brood rearing could have more serious consequences, with the magnitude
of these effects dependent on the scale of treatment.
Mining and Energy Development.— Many of the nation’s oil and gas resources lie under
sage grouse habitats across the western U.S., from which development and production
activities could potentially affect sage grouse if habitats are lost, fragmented, or
degraded. Effects of oil and gas development on sage grouse are not extensively
documented, however, and long-term impacts after reclamation are not clearly
understood.
Outreach and Education.— Effective conservation of sage grouse requires collaboration
between federal and state land and wildlife managers, private landowners, tribal
governments, extension service, and other interests to develop and implement appropriate
regional protection strategies. Implementation of a Montana sage grouse conservation
plan requires a sound biological foundation. Most information about shrub-steppe
habitats and sage grouse is contained in technical manuscripts. However, conservation of
sage grouse and other sagebrush-associated species requires local involvement and userfriendly
information.
Power Lines and Generation Facilities.—Power lines provide additional hunting perches
for raptors in otherwise treeless areas. Power lines most likely impact grouse near leks, in
brood-rearing habitat, and in wintering areas that also support large numbers of wintering
raptors. Construction of new power lines contributes to habitat degradation when
accompanied by new roads or other infrastructure, e.g., pipelines, fences, etc. Utilities
commonly make power poles safe for raptors to use as perches, which poses a dilemma in
sage grouse habitat.
Predation.— The effects of predators on sage grouse populations and issues surrounding
predator control concern landowners, wildlife managers, and the public. Composition and
abundance of avian and mammalian predator populations have changed since termination
of widespread predator control in the early 1970s. Although many native mammals and
birds may prey upon sage grouse eggs, juveniles, or occasionally adults, grouse
populations cycle from lows to highs despite ongoing predation. Livestock producers
view a loss of livestock to predators as an economic loss, but they also perceive predators
as a threat. Wildlife managers view predators taking wildlife as an expected component
of natural mortality.
Recreational Disturbance.— Sage grouse may draw human recreational activities such as
viewing, monitoring, and photographing, to seasonally important habitats. Monitoring
sage grouse populations and habitats is essential at leks and other critical habitats.
Recreation and monitoring should be considered cumulatively as part of assessing
approaches for managing human disturbance of sage grouse.
Roads and Motorized Vehicles.— Roads and off-road travel can impact sage grouse and
their habitats in a variety of ways that include habitat fragmentation and loss and a
potential decline and/or shift in grouse populations. Vehicle use on federal, state, and
tribal lands, both on and off roads, has increased significantly over the past few years and
has impacted habitat quality. Severity of impacts may be directly related to the amount of
vehicle travel occurring.
Vegetation.— Past management of rangelands, including plowing, has altered the density,
structure, composition, and presence of sagebrush communities and has in some cases
created a variety of conditions that do not meet the desired condition described for sage
grouse seasonal needs. Restoring or enhancing sage grouse habitats requires diverse
strategies. Disagreements often arise regarding the ecological role, or successional
relationships, of “old” or “decadent” stands of sagebrush, the need to manipulate
sagebrush communities, method of control, and extent of treatment.
Managing Other Wildlife in Sage Grouse Habitat.— The effect of other species of native
herbivores, e.g., large ungulates and prairie dogs, on habitats that they share with sage
grouse may be problematic if intensive use and foraging degrades the quality of habitats
that grouse use for nesting and brood-rearing. Streamside riparian areas, springs, wet
meadows, and other mesic sites, which also attract other herbivores, become increasingly
important as the summer season progresses. Periods of drought often increase adverse
impacts. Successfully resolving or mitigating these potential conflicts with wild
herbivores depends on willingness of managers to objectively assess impacts that might
occur as a result of excessive herbivory and other land uses.
