Western Sage Grouse

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, my ethical meter is working just fine. Thanks for thinking of me though.


The biggest impact on wildlife that I have seen by O&G production here in the east is the number of people poaching and hunting. The wells seem to not bother the deer nearly as much as does a .300 magnum.

I'm here for you, Eric.

The increased poaching follows development everywhere. YOu should read some of the old police blotters from Pinedale, WY when they were in the heat of development - most of the crimes were wildlife related.

 

[Nemont]

Lifted this pic from the SGI FB page, Just to add a little levity

 

[jryoung]

no double rainbow?

 

[Nemont]

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishAndWildlife/nr_0639.html

The FWP states that in the South East corner it is a culprit they cannot manage that has made the population "plummet".

 

[Eric Albus]

thanks nemont, same thing Reg. 6 biologists say, we have a sustainable population.... and this year we have a bright outlook, as the nesting conditions must have been near perfect, lots of young sagies out there right now....

 

[mtmiller]

mtmiller...I can get those counts for you, if you need them.

Eric, sounds good. Please get me the 2014 counts and trends.

How long should I wait on this?

thanks nemont, same thing Reg. 6 biologists say, we have a sustainable population.... and this year we have a bright outlook, as the nesting conditions must have been near perfect, lots of young sagies out there right now....

Eric, you were still planning on providing quantitative data, right?

 

[Eric Albus]

still waiting on drew to call me....

 

[Eric Albus]

long range is about average, but short range numbers are off... 2012 16 males per lek, to 9 in 2014

 

[mtmiller]

long range is about average, but short range numbers are off... 2012 16 males per lek, to 9 in 2014

What does about average mean? What is the 10-year average compared to 2014?

Phillips 10-year average 29. Last year it was 17 and this year 13. -55% 10-year.
Blaine/Chouteau 10-year is -29% and I didn't include leks that are no longer active.

Hearing long range is about average, but dropped 44% in one year and seeing trends of your neighbors has me scratching my head.

Maybe that was the only info you were able to turn up?

 

[mdunc8]

What is the 10-year average compared to 2014?

I'd be interested to see what recent counts look like compared to even longer term data (e.g., 30-year average). Do you those data handy?

 

[1_pointer]

I'd be interested to see what recent counts look like compared to even longer term data (e.g., 30-year average). Do you those data handy?

Possibly not. The long-term data I had for Utah was only good tracking a specific lek over time. The results were quite a bit confounded considering how much more counting of leks is currently going on. The trend data was not entirely unusefull, it just wasn't more than qualitative due to differences in sample size and methodology. 'Course that was the data I had from a completely different part of the country. I'll keep my fingers crossed that MT has better data, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

 

[mdunc8]

Sample size shouldn't be an issue. Changes to sampling protocols might cause some problems, but I'm guessing there are ways to adjust the data based on what methods were used.

 

[1_pointer]

Sample size shouldn't be an issue. Changes to sampling protocols might cause some problems, but I'm guessing there are ways to adjust the data based on what methods were used.

At least for the data I was referencing and helped collect, sample size was an issue. IIRC, they were only counting birds on about 5 leks 30 years ago. When I was helping with the effort ('03-'10) there were something like 30 leks being counted. Even though it was widely accepted that the bird numbers had decreased the actual data said other wise. From the Sage Grouse Conservation Plan for Rich County, Utah (see attachment for graph):

The UDWR
has been monitoring sage-grouse lek sites and the number of strutting males in Rich County
since 1959. Early counts often included less than 10 lek sites and were likely underrepresentative
of the total number of leks and, therefore, the total breeding population. In the last
5 years, over 30 leks have been monitored and previously unknown lek sites are discovered
regularly. Although sage-grouse populations in Rich County seem to be experiencing an
increasing trend since 1959 (Figure 2), this could simply be due to increased monitoring efforts
and an increase in the number of leks monitored.

Similar issues with methods. Early on they counted the leks once. The protocol I worked under had a minimum of 3 counts/visits needed during a specific time frame for the data to be accepted. While not garbage, it made ascertaining a true trend based on the numbers problematic.

An alternative for through time comparison mentioned in the plan is male attendence per lek. Using this metric, the number has remained quasi-stable since the '70s.

 

[mdunc8]

Even though it was widely accepted that the bird numbers had decreased the actual data said other wise..

I don't think the data said that. I think someone using the data improperly might have said that. Point taken though.

One could easily convert the data from that study (just as Miller previously did) into something that actually makes sense (e.g., % change in the mean number of males during a certain time period). Why anyone would produce and/or use a figure like the one you provided is beyond me especially if the number of leks included in the study increased by over 300%.

 

[mdunc8]

An alternative for through time comparison mentioned in the plan is male attendence per lek. Using this metric, the number has remained quasi-stable since the '70s.

Sorry, didn't see this until after my last post. Yes, this is a much better metric than reporting a maximum number. However, "quasi-stable" can mean very different things to different people as has been demonstrated in this thread already. Can you put a number on "quasi-stable"? Not picking a fight. Genuinely interested to hear the number.

 

[1_pointer]

I don't think the data said that. I think someone using the data improperly might have said that. Point taken though.

One could easily convert the data from that study (just as Miller previously did) into something that actually makes sense (e.g., % change in the mean number of males during a certain time period). Why anyone would produce and/or use a figure like the one you provided is beyond me especially if the number of leks included in the study increased by over 300%.

Total number of males is entered into a formula, which I no longer remember, to calculate/estimate the total population size. That why I stated previously that the data showed the population increasing. But as you state increasing the number of leks counted makes this only slightly better than nothing.

 

[1_pointer]

Sorry, didn't see this until after my last post. Yes, this is a much better metric than reporting a maximum number. However, "quasi-stable" can mean very different things to different people as has been demonstrated in this thread already. Can you put a number on "quasi-stable"? Not picking a fight. Genuinely interested to hear the number.

"Quasi-stable" in a picture...

Using my mark 4, statistcally calibrated eyeball, I'd say a best fit line would be pretty close to flat or maybe slightly increasing. That said, I'd would think that which leks were counted would matter as would the time frame one was interested in. Hence my use of the term "quasi". They only qualify the data by saying years in which 10+ leks were counted and not which leks. Though the birds do move from lek to lek, a comparison between leks, IMO, is a bit problematic in trying to draw a long term trend. I counted leks that averaged more in any one year than some others ever had in any one count the years I counted them.

No I don't think I could put a number to what I meant by "quasi-stable". Largely, because I do not think the numbers themselves are accurate enough to do so. Likewise, as you can see from the graph, one can show down, up, and stable trends depending on the years used for the comparison. I guess what I should have said, in my opinion/experience, it might be stable.

FWIW, I had posted earlier on some more recent population data from a very large ranch in the county. The biologist I talked with, who's very involved with the birds statewide, said that their numbers reflected what had happened somewhat statewide. He related to me that there had been a drop in numbers of about 55% from 2008-2012. Up a bit from '12-'13 and up 40% from '13-'14 getting them close but not quite to 2008 numbers.