Bambistew
Well-known member
How are wild horses native??? They're about as native as a phesant.
When will Dubya start removing native wild game?
- Thread starter Bambistew
- Start date
Muledeer4me
New member
"but what does it say about the condition of the range?"
That is won't support all of the thing's different groups of people think it should ,so like everything else in life there has to be some hard action's taken.
I have mixed feeling on the so called wild horse's.
If the area is having a hard time supporting horse's and other "wild game" I would be in support of taking out the horse's first.
Far cry from Bush removing native game.
That is won't support all of the thing's different groups of people think it should ,so like everything else in life there has to be some hard action's taken.
I have mixed feeling on the so called wild horse's.
If the area is having a hard time supporting horse's and other "wild game" I would be in support of taking out the horse's first.
Far cry from Bush removing native game.
BuzzH
Well-known member
What?
You have to be joking.
I read this article yesterday, the only reason the horses are being taken out is to put wells on the last 7 percent of the land that isnt already being ripped by gas development.
I agree with Oak, the range conditions from all the roads, well pads, etc. has significantly impacted native big-game as much or more than the horses. I'd bet the horses are a lot more tolerant of increased access, increased vehicle use, etc...they rarely get shot at by lard butts on atv's...unlike the native wildlife.
Anyone that argues that oil and gas development on public lands doesnt remove native game has absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
Dont make me post the pictures again...
You have to be joking.
I read this article yesterday, the only reason the horses are being taken out is to put wells on the last 7 percent of the land that isnt already being ripped by gas development.
I agree with Oak, the range conditions from all the roads, well pads, etc. has significantly impacted native big-game as much or more than the horses. I'd bet the horses are a lot more tolerant of increased access, increased vehicle use, etc...they rarely get shot at by lard butts on atv's...unlike the native wildlife.
Anyone that argues that oil and gas development on public lands doesnt remove native game has absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
Dont make me post the pictures again...
Bambistew
Well-known member
I guess I miss understood your title. I agree gas and oil development is bad, and obviously the range must be in terrible shape... but if the horses are gone wouldn't that free up some "range" for the native animals? Would this possibly violate the wild horse and burro act or what ever it is?
Ithaca 37
New member
"About 900 oil and gas wells already dot the 123,000 acres the horses once grazed. Now, drilling is going to be permitted on the 7 percent of the grazing area that hadn't been leased in the past......"
You've got one well for every 137 acres now and more wells coming. You think there's not a road into every well? You think the wildlife can deal with the road hunters? Kiss another area goodbye for hunting.
You've got one well for every 137 acres now and more wells coming. You think there's not a road into every well? You think the wildlife can deal with the road hunters? Kiss another area goodbye for hunting.
AKHighmark
New member
Have you been to Alaska? Not many Bou on the North Slope. Lots of Oil development there.
How ridiculous is it that 123,000 acres is no longer able to support 120 horses because of oil and gas development? How do you think deer, elk and antelope are doing in this area? How long before Dubya decides to "temporarily" remove deer and elk, until the oil and gas reserves are depleted in "approximately 40 years." Oh yeah, he's already doing it. But according to some, that's ok, because "Mother Earth has a way of healing herself." 
Drilling to oust wild horses
**LINK**
One of Colorado's five remaining herds of wild horses is slated to be rounded up and removed from a rugged area in northwest Colorado to make way for more oil and gas development.
The pending removal has infuriated wild horse advocates and environmentalists who view the action as a failure of the Bureau of Land Management to follow a 34-year-old federal mandate to manage wild horse populations. They say it also sets a dangerous precedent for some of the country's other estimated 27,000 free-roaming mustangs because this marks the first time the bureau is removing a herd due to the encroachment of oil and gas wells.
The animals will either be adopted or put in a "sanctuary," which is a long-term holding facility.
"We think it's shameful," said Andrea Rococo, Rocky Mountain coordinator for The Fund for Animals. "Colorado horses are dwindling down to about zero, and now the BLM is considering zeroing out another herd."
The herd targeted for removal is a band of an estimated 120 horses west of Douglas Divide and south of Rangely. About 900 oil and gas wells already dot the 123,000 acres the horses once grazed. Now, drilling is going to be permitted on the 7 percent of the grazing area that hadn't been leased in the past.
Colorado's other wild horse herds, located east of Douglas Divide, in the Book Cliffs near Grand Junction, southwest of Montrose, and near Maybell, co-exist with oil and gas drilling. Wild horse advocates say the more than 500 animals adapt well to drilling activities and pose no conflict.
Oil and gas development "wasn't as intrusive as I thought it would be," said Marty Felix, who monitors the Little Book Cliffs herd near Grand Junction for Friends of the Mustang.
Felix is complimentary of the way the BLM is managing wild horses. But Toni Moore, a Grand Junction veterinary assistant who has taken on the cause of the West Douglas herd, claims the BLM is illegally decimating the ranks of wild horses while favoring livestock grazing and energy development interests.
The bureau was mandated in 1971 under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act to give wild horses the same priority as other uses.
"We're absolutely required by law to provide the horses with the best possible range. And we're pretty proud. We have the best herds," said Bob Fowler, a forester and range management specialist with the Meeker-based field office of the BLM.
Fowler said the horses slated for removal have been affected by drilling and now graze an area of less than 30,000 acres - not enough for a healthy herd. Fowler said when the horses are removed sometime before 2007, the area will maintain its status as a herd area, which means that horses could be returned when the oil and gas reserves are depleted, in approximately 40 years.
Horse advocates predict the herd-removal issue that drew 500 letters of objection will end up in court. Nineteen formal protests have been filed since the decision was issued in August.
Drilling to oust wild horses
**LINK**
One of Colorado's five remaining herds of wild horses is slated to be rounded up and removed from a rugged area in northwest Colorado to make way for more oil and gas development.
The pending removal has infuriated wild horse advocates and environmentalists who view the action as a failure of the Bureau of Land Management to follow a 34-year-old federal mandate to manage wild horse populations. They say it also sets a dangerous precedent for some of the country's other estimated 27,000 free-roaming mustangs because this marks the first time the bureau is removing a herd due to the encroachment of oil and gas wells.
The animals will either be adopted or put in a "sanctuary," which is a long-term holding facility.
"We think it's shameful," said Andrea Rococo, Rocky Mountain coordinator for The Fund for Animals. "Colorado horses are dwindling down to about zero, and now the BLM is considering zeroing out another herd."
The herd targeted for removal is a band of an estimated 120 horses west of Douglas Divide and south of Rangely. About 900 oil and gas wells already dot the 123,000 acres the horses once grazed. Now, drilling is going to be permitted on the 7 percent of the grazing area that hadn't been leased in the past.
Colorado's other wild horse herds, located east of Douglas Divide, in the Book Cliffs near Grand Junction, southwest of Montrose, and near Maybell, co-exist with oil and gas drilling. Wild horse advocates say the more than 500 animals adapt well to drilling activities and pose no conflict.
Oil and gas development "wasn't as intrusive as I thought it would be," said Marty Felix, who monitors the Little Book Cliffs herd near Grand Junction for Friends of the Mustang.
Felix is complimentary of the way the BLM is managing wild horses. But Toni Moore, a Grand Junction veterinary assistant who has taken on the cause of the West Douglas herd, claims the BLM is illegally decimating the ranks of wild horses while favoring livestock grazing and energy development interests.
The bureau was mandated in 1971 under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act to give wild horses the same priority as other uses.
"We're absolutely required by law to provide the horses with the best possible range. And we're pretty proud. We have the best herds," said Bob Fowler, a forester and range management specialist with the Meeker-based field office of the BLM.
Fowler said the horses slated for removal have been affected by drilling and now graze an area of less than 30,000 acres - not enough for a healthy herd. Fowler said when the horses are removed sometime before 2007, the area will maintain its status as a herd area, which means that horses could be returned when the oil and gas reserves are depleted, in approximately 40 years.
Horse advocates predict the herd-removal issue that drew 500 letters of objection will end up in court. Nineteen formal protests have been filed since the decision was issued in August.
BuzzH
Well-known member
AKhighmark,
You been to NW colorado?
How about South Central Wyoming?
How about Eastern Utah?
How about the Powder River Basin in MT?
I tell you what, why dont you apply for a deer tag in WY and spend your time looking for mule deer here:
Report back with your success story and pics and tell us how good all these roads, well pads, and oil development has had very little impact on wildlife...and how your B&C buck was hiding behind an oil rig...
Oh, and to answer your question, I have been to Alaska...I have this thing about record book white sheep.
I agree with you that AK is a different situation, as a very small fraction of the LARGEST US state is impacted by oil development. Thats a little different than the story in MT, ID, WY, CO, etc. where wildlife habitat is already severely limited. Roading and having more development in an area already with limited habitat has a much more significant impact.
I hope you understand the difference...
You been to NW colorado?
How about South Central Wyoming?
How about Eastern Utah?
How about the Powder River Basin in MT?
I tell you what, why dont you apply for a deer tag in WY and spend your time looking for mule deer here:
Report back with your success story and pics and tell us how good all these roads, well pads, and oil development has had very little impact on wildlife...and how your B&C buck was hiding behind an oil rig...
Oh, and to answer your question, I have been to Alaska...I have this thing about record book white sheep.
I agree with you that AK is a different situation, as a very small fraction of the LARGEST US state is impacted by oil development. Thats a little different than the story in MT, ID, WY, CO, etc. where wildlife habitat is already severely limited. Roading and having more development in an area already with limited habitat has a much more significant impact.
I hope you understand the difference...
AKHighmark
New member
Actually, I grew up in western Colorado. I have been all around the roads out there. We used to see all kinds of wildlife around any kind of development.
I agree that development needs to be done in a responsible manner...unless you guys walk everywhere you need to get a grip on reality.
Alaska is different I guess. Our animals don't seem to care about the develpment. I'll have to find the numbers but the caribou population in prudhoe has grown since development started.
I agree that development needs to be done in a responsible manner...unless you guys walk everywhere you need to get a grip on reality.
Alaska is different I guess. Our animals don't seem to care about the develpment. I'll have to find the numbers but the caribou population in prudhoe has grown since development started.
BuzzH
Well-known member
AKHighmark,
How many people can drive a road up to the North Slope where all the oil development is and also drive all the roads put in for oil development????
How many people are driving all those Northslope oil roads whacking away at the caribou?
How many people are driving the Northslope oil roads when caribou are trying to winter there?
How many people live in Denver? How many in Anchorage or better yet, within 100 miles of the Northslope?
I cant paint the picture any more clearly than that...
How many people can drive a road up to the North Slope where all the oil development is and also drive all the roads put in for oil development????
How many people are driving all those Northslope oil roads whacking away at the caribou?
How many people are driving the Northslope oil roads when caribou are trying to winter there?
How many people live in Denver? How many in Anchorage or better yet, within 100 miles of the Northslope?
I cant paint the picture any more clearly than that...
AKHighmark
New member
I have driven the haul road a few times...just a couple weeks ago as a matter of fact. Bloody animals everywhere. Anyone can drive the haul road and hunt for bou...only with a bow like everyone knows. I have driven the oil field roads and been stopped for a couple hours waiting for the bou to get out of the way.
No one needs to get on the field to find animals to hunt..they are all over the place.
The same amount of people are driving the roads in the winter as in the summer....oil flows out of the field everyday.
I understand your population arguement...I just don't agree with it. Unless you want to go back to horse and buggy..you have to extract the resources.
I'll just get out of this no win discussion now.
No one needs to get on the field to find animals to hunt..they are all over the place.
The same amount of people are driving the roads in the winter as in the summer....oil flows out of the field everyday.
I understand your population arguement...I just don't agree with it. Unless you want to go back to horse and buggy..you have to extract the resources.
I'll just get out of this no win discussion now.
BuzzH
Well-known member
AKhighmark,
My point is you're comparing apples and lettuce...
Also, lets compare the road densities of AK versus road densities in the lower 48. THE most remote country in the lower 48 is still only 22 miles from an improved road. How many thousands and thousands of square miles of wilderness does Alaska have versus the lower 48?
I'd tend to agree with you if the only road through Colorado was I-25 and it led to ONE major oil field (assuming everything else was unroaded wilderness) and that less than 100K people lived within 100 miles of those fields. Yeah, the impact of oil development would be minimal, unfortunately, that aint the case in WY, CO, MT, UT, NM, or ID.
The accelerated rate of development by Dubya and his cronies is having a very significant impact on the very little remote/suitable wildlife habitat left in MT, ID, WY, etc.
I'm also not in denial about the need for resources, but you will never convince me that: 1. development of oil and gas in the lower 48 isnt negatively impacting wildlife
2. That industry is using the latest technology
3. That the number of wells drilled cant be decreased.
I recently read on this board, an article addressing how the oil and gas industry is NOT using the latest technology and that they are drilling many, many, many times more wells than is necessary. The article in question was written by a retired oil man.
There is not responsible development taking place down here, no denying that.
My point is you're comparing apples and lettuce...
Also, lets compare the road densities of AK versus road densities in the lower 48. THE most remote country in the lower 48 is still only 22 miles from an improved road. How many thousands and thousands of square miles of wilderness does Alaska have versus the lower 48?
I'd tend to agree with you if the only road through Colorado was I-25 and it led to ONE major oil field (assuming everything else was unroaded wilderness) and that less than 100K people lived within 100 miles of those fields. Yeah, the impact of oil development would be minimal, unfortunately, that aint the case in WY, CO, MT, UT, NM, or ID.
The accelerated rate of development by Dubya and his cronies is having a very significant impact on the very little remote/suitable wildlife habitat left in MT, ID, WY, etc.
I'm also not in denial about the need for resources, but you will never convince me that: 1. development of oil and gas in the lower 48 isnt negatively impacting wildlife
2. That industry is using the latest technology
3. That the number of wells drilled cant be decreased.
I recently read on this board, an article addressing how the oil and gas industry is NOT using the latest technology and that they are drilling many, many, many times more wells than is necessary. The article in question was written by a retired oil man.
There is not responsible development taking place down here, no denying that.
AKHighmark
New member
OK...lets go a different direction. What about development in ANWR?
Delw
Member
hey buzz that picture looks like alot of places out west, instead of oil pads they are replaced by culdasacs and house's lots and lots of house's,
seems most people dont or cant do anything about house's being built but they sure do go after oil and mines.
our state goverment has done nothing when it comes to house's being built and aquiering more land, but they sure do whine and bitch if a mine or power plant or some logging is done.
look at the flagstaff area and up along the rim, they sell acre lots for house they are all over the place, when you want to build your house on one you have to get a permit to cut the trees down, but when they want to log in places the people put a stop to it. a few houseing developements were built on forrest service land that was sold to the state( thanks to clinton). I had some property up there a few years ago(Blue ridge estates coconino forrest) the land I bought was actually NF land 2 years before, and it bordered the new boundry(back yard right on the fence line),Just recently(in the last couple of years) they aquiered more of that land for houseing developments and my old property is 2-3 miles from the boundry now. Ive heard that they are getting more NF land to sell as well.
Dont get me wrong I agree with ya to a certain point about the growth I dont like to see it either but hey its going to happen wether its bush or clinton or f'in kerry. If it wasnt oil pads they put there it would be housing and shopping malls.
Other than completely stopping the population growth and doing away with summer homes and more than one property for each person there is really nothing we can do to stop it.
Delw
seems most people dont or cant do anything about house's being built but they sure do go after oil and mines.
our state goverment has done nothing when it comes to house's being built and aquiering more land, but they sure do whine and bitch if a mine or power plant or some logging is done.
look at the flagstaff area and up along the rim, they sell acre lots for house they are all over the place, when you want to build your house on one you have to get a permit to cut the trees down, but when they want to log in places the people put a stop to it. a few houseing developements were built on forrest service land that was sold to the state( thanks to clinton). I had some property up there a few years ago(Blue ridge estates coconino forrest) the land I bought was actually NF land 2 years before, and it bordered the new boundry(back yard right on the fence line),Just recently(in the last couple of years) they aquiered more of that land for houseing developments and my old property is 2-3 miles from the boundry now. Ive heard that they are getting more NF land to sell as well.
Dont get me wrong I agree with ya to a certain point about the growth I dont like to see it either but hey its going to happen wether its bush or clinton or f'in kerry. If it wasnt oil pads they put there it would be housing and shopping malls.
Other than completely stopping the population growth and doing away with summer homes and more than one property for each person there is really nothing we can do to stop it.
Delw
BuzzH
Well-known member
Del,
I dont agree, you ever been to some of the areas we're talking about?
I dont think you'll be seeing much development in the Jack Morrow hills or anywhere else in South Central Wyoming, Eastern Montana, or NW Colorado.
The argument of those areas being turned into shopping malls or subdivisions is pretty lame and unrealistic.
I agree that other development is just as bad, and I agree that it isnt being properly addressed either. However, thats still not a legitimate excuse to have out of control oil and gas development in some of the last remaining wildlife habitat in the West.
I dont agree, you ever been to some of the areas we're talking about?
I dont think you'll be seeing much development in the Jack Morrow hills or anywhere else in South Central Wyoming, Eastern Montana, or NW Colorado.
The argument of those areas being turned into shopping malls or subdivisions is pretty lame and unrealistic.
I agree that other development is just as bad, and I agree that it isnt being properly addressed either. However, thats still not a legitimate excuse to have out of control oil and gas development in some of the last remaining wildlife habitat in the West.
AKHighmark
New member
Out of control???? Doesn't the EPA and the States DEC oversee the oil companies to ensure that regulations are followed?
The industry here(AK) is probably the most regulated/watched in the world. You can't tell me its not done to a certain extent down there.
JoseCuervo
New member
BuzzH
Well-known member
AKhighmark,
Coal bed methane development (which is mostly whats going on down here) there is very little that the DEQ or EPA can do about controlling it.
Water discharges from CBM are not considered a pollutant and the DEQ rubber stamps all the permits.
The BLM and FS are under directive (from the current admin.) to accelerate the permitting process, disregarding NEPA.
NO consideration is given to wildlife or wildlife habitat...
Yep, its pretty tightly regulated...
Coal bed methane development (which is mostly whats going on down here) there is very little that the DEQ or EPA can do about controlling it.
Water discharges from CBM are not considered a pollutant and the DEQ rubber stamps all the permits.
The BLM and FS are under directive (from the current admin.) to accelerate the permitting process, disregarding NEPA.
NO consideration is given to wildlife or wildlife habitat...
Yep, its pretty tightly regulated...
AKHighmark
New member
Well...I would like to continue this discussion, but I have to get up in 5 hours to go work on a valve to keep you guys in crude oil. Keep on driving.
Similar threads
