Questions about energy exploration/production

[ELKCHSR]

That was well stated Tom and really is the essence of the American people.

If I give a dollar, would you go plant a sage grouse plant there?, maybe that group will show up again.

If the 'oligists' on the board want more support, they need to feed some information that is... well... I guess one could say, dumbed down quite a bit from the vast knowledge that some of you have on a subject.

Not every one, well, for that matter, most, will spend the time to read thru the mountains and mountains the "experts" here want us all to go thru to understand a subject to it’s nth degree.

I guess what I can say is that if you guy's don't learn to shorten up a lot of the information you want every one to have, you will have to learn to be far more tolerant and let loose a little more of your own personal information on the subjects if you want understanding and help from the masses or populace in general.

No one here is going to steal your jobs, nor are they going to try utilizing all the personal information you guys have to rectify the situation you see as a catastrophe in the making.

I know what you guys do know, has been hard learned over years of commitment to the subjects you follow, but you will never get any help, if you continually alienate those who would be willing to at least give you a hand in what ever way they can or will offer.

We all would like to help to an extent, but not commit our lives or souls into the endeavor, as much as some of us would like to, it just isn’t going to happen.

I know some of you freely answer questions some of us ask, but there are more than less that will just snub any inquisitiveness, and then treat them like they are useless...

I know some would just shrug their shoulders, that just give them reason to be bitter, but it sure doesn’t get any thing solved towards what ever the dilemma happens to be at the moment.

I suppose what I am saying, is you fellers will have to give up some information that you personally know about a subjects at hand, what ever the extent that can be given at the moment, (if you want any help that is) with out making others feel inferior because of simple ignorance on a given topic.

 

[mtmiller]

Exactly, mtmiller, with all the rest of the US citizens, they want the gas, they could care less about the sage grouse! You buy the land, you pay for what the well would produce, then the sage grouse can have the area. If you can't pay, you have to convince the rest of us too. If I give a dollar, would you go plant a sage grouse plant there?, maybe that group will show up again.

Pretty broad brush you paint with there Tom. The good thing is that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I have been to the public meetings and I have read the public comments. Like every issue there are many sides and some debating is good.

Obviously you are in favor of extracting all the energy possible without regard to other resources (actually you said we could move the wildlife |oo ). Contrary to what you think, there are many folks that disagree with you. On the otherside, there are many that agree with you, but maybe you should get them involved because the #### you are spouting is some of the ### #### I have ever heard.

Alright, now that was a personal shot. Go ahead and rebutt, but try to use an intelligent thought process. I may return fire or I might just let this die, as you are becoming a waste of my time.

 

[Bambistew]

Tom I don't think you understand the problem at all... You've cited the 46% of deer relocated two or three times now. Yeah they went elsewhere because they couldn't co-exist with the development, is that hard to understand? They didn't just pack up becuase the didn't like their new neighbors... the new neighbors made it impossible for them to live there.

Where do they go if there is no place for them to go? It's not Texas and there isn't a field of Biologic and a corn flinger on ever 200 acres... to artifically keep the herd populations over caring capacity... They may temporarily survive in another area for a while, but what about the animals that where in the "relocated" area to begin with? Now the new "relocated" habitat could be over its caring capacity... where do the "extra" animals go? Heres a hint... they die! What happens when the area where they moved to is later developed? Again... dead! What happens when there is no place left for them to go? Yep you guessed it... dead again...

You think we should feed them??? This isn't Texas, and the Fish and Wildlife isn't going to put up corn flingers, plant Biologic, and dole out hay because there is not enough natural habitat to support the animals... Habitat should support itself PERIOD! The people that loose when that happens are big oil... If they would put as much money and reserch into finding alternate energy sources we woudn't be in this situation... but they follow the easy money, and the government gives it to them! What you're missing is when the development is complete the animals will be gone and most likely for ever!

You say you don't care about Sage grouse? Well I don't care about rat deer in Texas and hope they all contract CWD and die off... Its coming you can count on that!

Think about this, what if pigs where protected and where eating your deer and quail out of house and home? Would you just go in and plant a few bushes that will make it a year or two before the pigs kill them, throw up some corn flingers, toss out some hay and call it good, even if only small percentage of the original deer population survived?

You need to step back and look at the big picture and problems that this type of intensive and unmanaged development creates...

I'm dreading the day10-20 years down the road when "we" discover all the problems that the CBM development has creatated and we hear the pattented "I told you so"... and reclamation will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars...

I take it since you don't understand millers question, or think "your" life style is irrelavent... you must be batting for the other team!

 

[Tom]

Maybe I'll plant my own sage bush next time I'm up that way, you guys obviously are not interested. Food, cover, and water, animals love it. Did the roads chase this elk away?

No.

If you take out habitat, put more in nearby, its simple.

 

[Tom]

Did the roads chase this buck away?

No.

Food, cover, and water, its simple. Manage for that.

 

[Tom]

Marv, I get that, they say they were there, and now there gone, because of the wells. I say, put some more in around the wells, help fix it.

Elkchsr, I don't think they take any courses in communication skills in their programs of study.

mtmiller, The animals move themselves, I asked if you could help them, if people have studied improving nearby habitat. The animal resources are renewable and not worth much to the American people, I think I'm just taking note of that. I'm sure you and Oak and Buzz are not going to turn off your furnace this winter. That's why we're getting the gas out, for people like you and me.

Bambistew, you gave a pretty good argument for improving the habitat around an area when the humans develop it. That's the idea, will you plant any sage bush plants?

 

[mtmiller]

Thanks Tom. Too bad you didn't have these photos available before industry threw all that money at research in Wyoming.

Pretty obvious the research was bunk and you knew it all along.

Just in case, I will attach a link to the 2005 report.
http://www.west-inc.com/reports/PAPA_2005_report_med.pdf

Kind of a toss up. Who would others on the board tend to believe, Tom or an industry funded research project?

From that picture, it is obvious to see tennis courts equal quality mule deer habitat. Therefore, to mitigate 5-40 acres spacing of gas pads on big game winter range, we just create tennis courts in the nearby habitat.

I also saw a dead deer on the road this morning. Must mean deer are attracted to roads. |oo

 

[Washington Hunter]

You know what's simple? More People=Less Wildlife....no way around that, in my opinion. As the human population increases, the demand for energy, water, food, housing, etc. increases also, and wildlife loses. It's simple.

The only way around it would be to either stabilize our human populaton, or for everyone to take a drastic cut in the resources that we all use on a daily basis, such as water, gasoline, electricity, etc. Which would mean living in smaller houses, driving smaller cars or using alternative modes of transportation, taking shorter showers, quit watering the lawn, etc. And, we all know none of those things are going to happen. So, we as hunters are basically screwed. Yes it's true. So let's just all admit it. |oo

Let's all enjoy the great hunting we still have for as long as we can. hump

It sure isn't going to last forever at the rate we're going.

 

[mtmiller]

I'm sure you and Oak and Buzz are not going to turn off your furnace this winter. That's why we're getting the gas out, for people like you and me.

I don't disagree with you Tom, but as I mentioned earlier....

Don't get me wrong. Getting these resources out of the ground are a benefit to all americans, but there are some places that need protection, whether it is because of sensitive wildlife, unstable soils or pristine areas.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Oh, and Tom, sorry about the negativity, but it's hard to be optimistic when the majority of hunters I know won't even spend the money to join just one conservation organization, and besides that most of them bitch about the cost of hunting licenses. |oo

And of course, the non-hunters of this country are even worse when it comes to caring about wildlife and/or wildlife habitat. If it costs money, they're not for it. I guess it's all about priorities.

 

[MarvB]

Just skimmed the pages (50+) but I would think that this would sum it up for the most part:

Of particular concern is the decreasing abundance estimates in the treatment area, dropping from 5,228 in 2002 to 2,818 in 2005. This 4-year, 46% reduction in deer abundance is disconcerting because there is no concurrent evidence of a population decline in the control area. At this point
in time we cannot detect any positive or negative trends in the control area, but abundance in the treatment area has significantly declined since 2002. Following the severe winter and associated high mortality rates in 2003-04, we expected deer abundance to increase the following year in
both treatment and control areas, given the exceptionally mild 2004-05 winter. While an increase was evident in the control area, abundance continued to decline in the treatment area.

Tom at a 46% rate of decline, you're gonna have to plant a lot of sage to make a difference. Still seems to me like we've (as a country) got to get back to the R&D side of nuclear to solve a lot of these problems and fuel dependency....we'd still have 49 states left after sacrificing Nevada

 

[Tom]

That study is something good to discuss, its the one that shows the 46% of deer moving to presumably better habitat, when the wells came in. They didn't show is what better habitat, they just presumed that. If they prefered to not move, why not improve the habitat there where the wells are put in a little and maybe they will stay. That's my question after going through that report. They have road density and well proximity in their model, but they don't have water supply, food supply and cover in their model. Its not a very complete study is it?

Anybody with any sense would know food supply, water supply, and cover are important for animals. Yet, they didn't measure that, they didn't put it in their model, they didn't compare the effects of increasing habitat to increasing roads and wells. A lot more deer would stay, if some plants were put in for them, when the wells and roads take them out.

Maybe we could have a sage brush stamp, add a $5 stamp and the state plants a bush. Where's a study that shows how important or unimportant planting a bush is?

Look at their equation on p.32, it doesn't have anything about food and water and good cover, just roads, i.e. bad cover and year. That study is a good first study, but what about food, water, and good cover measures? They will have coeficients in the model to estimate how many bushes and trees it would take to overcome the bad effects of a road and/or a well. We need to know those coefficients?

In the mean time, it seems like we should plant something to make up for what was lost. WashingtonHunter, its easier to do that, plant some extra good stuff, than to get rid of the extra people, I think. Otherwise, we will loose more and more hunting.

Another good way to do it, is to high fence a great habitat area, and control the traffic in there. You can maintain great hunting right in the middle of a high human population then. No road kill deer, no wrecked cars, no unauthorized ATV traffic, etc.

It seems easier to plant some bushes and trees, before going to that extreem with a fence, although Wyoming has plenty of protective high fence now.

The hunters that are not for anything that costs money are not thinking straight, it costs money to manage habitat well, common sense there.

 

[Tom]

Marv, if you look at the plots for the control group population they went down, then up. How do we know those deer didn't die off at first also, at the plot shows, then the well deer moved into the control area and got its population back up?

You say it would take a lot of sage brush to keep them in the treatment area where the wells and roads were put in, I would like to find out how many? They didn't even consider that question, as far as I can tell at this point.

 

[mtmiller]

its the one that shows the 46% of deer moving to presumably better habitat,

Do you think this was better habitat to begin with or were they pressured from the best available habitat to marginal, or least not as good habitat?

I think you are missing the point of the study, it is not just looking at the surface disturbance, but the loss of security that is associated with the travel. If you think the only implication of a new road is a 30' linear surface disturbance, you not seeing the whole picture.

Maybe we could have a sage brush stamp, add a $5 stamp and the state plants a bush. Where's a study that shows how important or unimportant planting a bush is?

Do you really think the only reason the deer are in decline because of the forage loss? Habitat security, habitat security....

Another good way to do it, is to high fence a great habitat area, and control the traffic in there. You can maintain great hunting right in the middle of a high human population then. No road kill deer, no wrecked cars, no unauthorized ATV traffic, etc.

I want to respond to this, but I don't think it is necessary. I think you are in the minority with this opinion.

 

[Tom]

I already mentioned food, water, and cover, not just a 30 ft disturbance. But, my question is still unanswered, even for just a 30 ft disturbance, right? They didn't even measure that. If they measured food, it would need to be over the whole area, that's the point, they need to include measures of water and cover too.

What about the deer moving from treatment to control area, they might have addressed that question, if you know the details of it or read the whole thing, did they? If not, that might shed a different light on the results too.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Sagebrush is a good thing, and so would be bitterbrush. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does this type of work, and the Mule Deer Foundation does too. (and other organizations) My question is why are more hunters not supporting these organizations?

 

[mtmiller]

Sorry Tom, but you really confuse me. You said your question was still unanswered. Is this a question you are asking me or are you questioning the research?

I did find this question from you, but since I never mentioned anything about the amount of sage brush needed, you have me confused some more.

You say it would take a lot of sage brush to keep them in the treatment area where the wells and roads were put in, I would like to find out how many?

It seems even when you make a statement or provide your opinion, there is a question mark.

If you want me to answer your question, keep it short and simple and I will give it a shot. Please type slowly, as I can't always keep up.

 

[MarvB]

Am I missing something here (again, I just said I skimmed the results) but I didn't see that 2,400+/- deer packed their collective bags (and lunchpails full of sagebrush) and just traipsed over to the control area from the "treatment area". I don't see corresponding population increase in that area, but, if it did, I'm sure it would be above its normal carrying capacity in a heart beat- let alone in a four year period.

Tom I think the lion's share of those mulies were'nt just "displaced" over the four years...they are gone for good or at least until they can be possibly reestablished through rehab of the area. Please correct me if I'm wrong and just have glossed over that there was a corresponding increase in the populations elsewhere and how long those increased populations might be substained without impacting that habitat?

 

[Tom]

I'll try and type it slower and be clearer. I wish I knew how to change a pdf file to text, so I could cut and paste the figures. but I don't know how to do that.

Fig.2.10 shows the Mesa area, the treatment area and deer abundance numbers. They go down over the years.

Fig.2.11 shows the Pinedale area, the control area and deer abundance numbers go down from 2002 to 2003, then up some in 2004 and 2005.

The other figures, earlier show Pinedale above Mesa and migration routes going way below Mesa. So, since both areas population went down in 2003, and since deer travel accross both area, it made me think of this question. Did the deer not like Mesa and move to Pinedale? I'll have to read it in more detail, or maybe someone else will and see the answer, and post it. It may be in the report, it may not, its just a question.

The other question is what would be the coefficients for food, cover, and water in their equations, if they had studied them? It seems we would all agree, increased food would lead to increased abundance of deer, increased cover would lead to increased abundance of deer, and increased water would lead to increased abundance of deer, when those things become scarce.

The food, cover, and water values might explain what happened to those abundance numbers also. They didn't report that. I wish they did.

They can't study everything at once, I guess, but I wish they could have. So, without them reporting the coeficients for food, cover, and water, the results for year and roads that they do report could be biased. Its a fact about those equations, multiple regressions, when important variables are left out, the ones remaining in the equation have biased values.

So, my question, in general, after reading a report like this, that I'm glad you posted for us, is this. Are there more complete regression equations where they study more factors, including things like winter snowfall, temperatures, food supplies, cover availablility all at once? I don't know as much about all the studies in these areas as others, but I do know a lot about multiple regression equations, because I'm a statistician. So, I ask the subject matter people about such equations, are there any with more predictors that have been done. I know Oak used to have access to a lot of journals that I don't have access too, so I thought you guys might know something about some other equations somewhere, that might be relevant.

Sorry if I'm mixing up all the statements and questions.

 

[1_pointer]

Are we making this more difficult than it has to be? |oo

I didn't read the whole report, but if the control area is a 'true' control, then the only variable being tested is the presence or absence of oil/gas extraction, right? This of course assumes that the coefficients for food, water, and cover we significantly similar beforehand and that all uncontrolable factors (thinking mostly climate) were similar as well. Therefore, I gather that the oil/gas extraction alter the habitat enough to cause the deer to move. One alternative then can be to eliminate the extraction. Another is to fix the impacted area so that it is good enough for the deer to come back to. This makes the huge leap of faith, that adequate cover, food, and water are all that is needed. Thus, the crux of the problem as animals may not choose habitats that provide these things for many reasons; eg. dangers in getting there, being disturbed while being there, it's not there traditional place to be during a given time of year, etc. Often many of these things are difficult or even impossible to predict with mathematical model.