Why do we have biologists?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I hope they do get it worked out. Seems that most states in the west are going through some painful times.
The mule deer numbers have dropped from 240,000 in 1988 to 107,000 today. Some say lions, some say range, some say too many tags. If it's anything like Montana, I would say" all the above".
The mule deer numbers have dropped from 240,000 in 1988 to 107,000 today. Some say lions, some say range, some say too many tags. If it's anything like Montana, I would say" all the above".
BOWUNTR
Member
This makes me sad... Ed F
onpoint
Well-known member
Ben you hit the nail on the head with this paragraph from your post.....
"Our attention span as a special interest..................forgotten what it means to sacrifice our immediate desires for our long term well being."
This stuff should make us all sad.....unfortunately the 30 second sound bite mentality has invaded the hunter/angler community with a vengeance. Lotsa folks too busy watching the kill shot on the TV shows instead of fighting for the habitat, etc.
Still looking cautiously forward to see if there is any hope for a change in this situation among Montana sportsmen......hopefully the sound bite mentality doesn't apply to what we accomplished in the last couple months.
The test will come soon enough.....if we aren't proactive about our issues, we'll be reacting again...
"Our attention span as a special interest..................forgotten what it means to sacrifice our immediate desires for our long term well being."
This stuff should make us all sad.....unfortunately the 30 second sound bite mentality has invaded the hunter/angler community with a vengeance. Lotsa folks too busy watching the kill shot on the TV shows instead of fighting for the habitat, etc.
Still looking cautiously forward to see if there is any hope for a change in this situation among Montana sportsmen......hopefully the sound bite mentality doesn't apply to what we accomplished in the last couple months.
The test will come soon enough.....if we aren't proactive about our issues, we'll be reacting again...
sweetnectar
New member
Amen to all that!
BF, I realize that by quoting only a portion of your quote that my response may be a bit out of context. I bolded the part that I am specifically addressing relating to my experience working in landscapes very similar to NV and often adjacent to it. Yes, cheatgrass is a BIG problem in many of these arid/semi-arid basin and range areas. The change in the fire cycle is the largest culprit, IMO and there's quite a bit of research to back that up. However, often times the best way to try to reverse this situation is after a fire! It sort of cleans the slate so to speak. But, the conundrum becomes what to revegetate with. Using native species is never a bad choice, IF they can get adequate established. My experience and quite of bit of research, some of which I saw and participated in first hand, shows that many non-native species are better at getting established than the natives. IMO, it's better to get something established that "acts" like a native first and worry about the species present later. Research done in UT has shown that a better stand of native plants can be had by interseeding into an established stand of perennial non-natives than by using natives in the stabilzation/rehab effort. I guess that's a long way of saying that the two portions I bolded can often be exclusive of eachother.
Similar issues are happening with PJ, which I feel is a bigger threat to deer than cheatgrass because of the limited winter range left it's more susceptible to PJ invasion. I know the BLM in UT and NV has been spending lots of time and money to try to counter act this. However, public perception and fear of litigation has limited the scale and methods used in these efforts. One of the more effect and cost efficient methods isn't being used and that is chaining! The amount of acres chained/treated by the BLM post WWII is largely responsible for the huge increase in mule deer that was experienced in the 60s and 70s. There were large scale range improvements being done at this time, with chaining being one of the most common methods. During the early 60s the BLM nationally was treating over 1 million acres annually. I think a return to this scale of treatment is needed and would ultimately be beneficial. I just don't think it's possible today due to a variety of factors, which is unfortunate.
PS- Sorry for the diversion to the topic...
1 pointer, great stuff. I don't think it's diversionary at all. It goes back to the heart of the issue, apathetic hunters. The level of habitat conservation that was going on in the 60's and 70's was amazing when we look back.
The threat of litigation is omni-present. The only solution to excessive lawsuits I see, while maintaining our right to redress our government, is to force groups (not necessarily people) to put up a bond before filing suit. You lose, you forfeit your bond. You win, then you get your costs paid for at a set rate (not $200/hr).
Pointer - I agree with Ben, what you posted was not a diversion at all, but speaks to the point I was making about the cheat grass problem and the fire cycle it creates and benefits from.
When the big fires hit Nevada's mule deer ranges in 1998- 2005, NDOW was scrambling to find funds to re-seed immediately after the fires. They begged, borrowed, and pledged enough to cover a very small precentage for that which they thought was the absolute most critical area. Having hunted one of those re-seeded burns in 2009, it was amazing how much benefit the fire and re-seeding had provided.
Yet, that is a very small percentage of the crticial habitat that had burned in those years. Now, much of it has become huge cheat grass mono-cultures, with annual or bi-annual fire cycles and of no wildlife value. Much of it is, or I should say "was," winter range.
We all know that without winter range, summer range is secondary. What NDOW was able to do, with their very limited funds, over the huge areas that burned, is very impressive.
I know these agencies, such as the BLM do not have unlimited budgets for re-seeding. It would be great if more could have been done immediately following the fires, but did not happen. Now, we are left with well-established cheat grass communities that used to be prime winter range and transition range for wildlife.
When your primary landowner (BLM) is faced with the constraints you mention, lawsuits, pressures to change fire management, etc., it makes the wildlife agency somewhat neutered in the habitat game. So when people say it is all about the habitat, I agree. But when it is implid that NDOW needs to focus more on habitat, I think it is proper to point out how NDOW is at the mercy of BLM pressure/management, the biggest land agency in their state.
My point in bringing this up was to show how hard of a challenge NDOW has in managing wildlife on landscapes. And that this challenge, along with the many others NDOW faces, impresses me with how well they have done to deal with the problems and continue to provide the level of opportunity they have.
And given the NDOW talent at managing under these difficult conditions, I am inclined to put more faith in their recommendations for tag levels than I am the Commission who are mostly political appointees.
When the big fires hit Nevada's mule deer ranges in 1998- 2005, NDOW was scrambling to find funds to re-seed immediately after the fires. They begged, borrowed, and pledged enough to cover a very small precentage for that which they thought was the absolute most critical area. Having hunted one of those re-seeded burns in 2009, it was amazing how much benefit the fire and re-seeding had provided.
Yet, that is a very small percentage of the crticial habitat that had burned in those years. Now, much of it has become huge cheat grass mono-cultures, with annual or bi-annual fire cycles and of no wildlife value. Much of it is, or I should say "was," winter range.
We all know that without winter range, summer range is secondary. What NDOW was able to do, with their very limited funds, over the huge areas that burned, is very impressive.
I know these agencies, such as the BLM do not have unlimited budgets for re-seeding. It would be great if more could have been done immediately following the fires, but did not happen. Now, we are left with well-established cheat grass communities that used to be prime winter range and transition range for wildlife.
When your primary landowner (BLM) is faced with the constraints you mention, lawsuits, pressures to change fire management, etc., it makes the wildlife agency somewhat neutered in the habitat game. So when people say it is all about the habitat, I agree. But when it is implid that NDOW needs to focus more on habitat, I think it is proper to point out how NDOW is at the mercy of BLM pressure/management, the biggest land agency in their state.
My point in bringing this up was to show how hard of a challenge NDOW has in managing wildlife on landscapes. And that this challenge, along with the many others NDOW faces, impresses me with how well they have done to deal with the problems and continue to provide the level of opportunity they have.
And given the NDOW talent at managing under these difficult conditions, I am inclined to put more faith in their recommendations for tag levels than I am the Commission who are mostly political appointees.
BL- Though I doubt we will ever see the bond requirement passed as law, steps have been taken to, IMO, add some common sense to EAJA regulations. For example, an appealant can qualify for EAJA fees if they are appealing the issuance of a license/permit, but do not get them if they are appealing the renewing of a permit. Seemed semantic to me the first time I heard it, but according to the Solicitors office its a very big deal.
BF- I can definitely speak from experience as to the conundrum you are pointing out! I know that the BLM often does most everything they can to stabilize areas after a fire, but often times money and areas that can be stabilized/rehabed (actually quite different for the BLM) can limit their effectiveness. The amount of red tape that has to be crossed, even with the expedited process (compared to other similar type treatments) in place, is quite boggling. For example, drill seeding is one of the most effective ways of reseeding an area, but it has to have an archeological survey completed prior to it being implemented. That can be a huge logistical challenge to get that completed after the fires out and before the weather prevents the ability to do the work.
In NV, BLM is now facing a new challenge in stabilization/rehab from some of the so called "conservation" groups, one of which was vocally supported on this website by a formerly common participant. I know for a fact that they were able to get a stay granted preventing some rehab work on the big fire in '07 or '08 that burned around Jarbidge. I think efforts were able to commence, but not until I think the following year in some cases. The chances for success at that point have dropped considerably.
How much was BLM able to reseed after the fires your referenced? Reason I ask is that it has been my expereince in UT that the lion's share and I mean the big maned, grand daddy of all lion's share was done by the BLM. UT DWR was instrumental in a few cases due to their more streamlined contracting procedure, but the majority of the $$ was still coming from Uncle Sam. But, the good thing was that in some cases we were able to coordinate efforts to great success. The BLM did the work on the yellow part of the map and UT DWR was able to cost share with the private.
If done correctly, it is amazing the amount of change that can be accomplished with timely fire rehab on some areas.
BF- I can definitely speak from experience as to the conundrum you are pointing out! I know that the BLM often does most everything they can to stabilize areas after a fire, but often times money and areas that can be stabilized/rehabed (actually quite different for the BLM) can limit their effectiveness. The amount of red tape that has to be crossed, even with the expedited process (compared to other similar type treatments) in place, is quite boggling. For example, drill seeding is one of the most effective ways of reseeding an area, but it has to have an archeological survey completed prior to it being implemented. That can be a huge logistical challenge to get that completed after the fires out and before the weather prevents the ability to do the work.
In NV, BLM is now facing a new challenge in stabilization/rehab from some of the so called "conservation" groups, one of which was vocally supported on this website by a formerly common participant. I know for a fact that they were able to get a stay granted preventing some rehab work on the big fire in '07 or '08 that burned around Jarbidge. I think efforts were able to commence, but not until I think the following year in some cases. The chances for success at that point have dropped considerably.
How much was BLM able to reseed after the fires your referenced? Reason I ask is that it has been my expereince in UT that the lion's share and I mean the big maned, grand daddy of all lion's share was done by the BLM. UT DWR was instrumental in a few cases due to their more streamlined contracting procedure, but the majority of the $$ was still coming from Uncle Sam. But, the good thing was that in some cases we were able to coordinate efforts to great success. The BLM did the work on the yellow part of the map and UT DWR was able to cost share with the private.
If done correctly, it is amazing the amount of change that can be accomplished with timely fire rehab on some areas.
I would say that's sound positive direction under EAJA. So many of these lawsuits focus on the arcane and the semantic. I would never advocate for eliminating EAJA, but there does need to be some sideboards, and loser pays seems like the most reasonable out there.
In this political climate, we've proven that moderate steps to reform some of the abuses of federal laws can get traction. Unfortunately, not many seem interested in moderate reforms and would rather grandstand on wingnut ideas rather than work together to get something done.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Even if the politics are dealt with...money is going to be a huge limiting factor.
The BLM/FS have been forced to do more with less for a long, long, long time. They cant be stretched any thinner and its now to the point that they have to start doing less with less.
If significant changes and improving habitat are going to happen, its going to take money, and wayyyy more money than federal and state land management agencies receive now. The first sign of budget issues (either state or federal) and the land management agencies take a fuggin' shellacking.
Ask me how I know...:W:
The BLM/FS have been forced to do more with less for a long, long, long time. They cant be stretched any thinner and its now to the point that they have to start doing less with less.
If significant changes and improving habitat are going to happen, its going to take money, and wayyyy more money than federal and state land management agencies receive now. The first sign of budget issues (either state or federal) and the land management agencies take a fuggin' shellacking.
Ask me how I know...:W:
Amen.
$4 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the major O&G companies could go a long way towards doing the right thing on the ground for wildlife.
Wyoming led the way in helping get some funding put together exclusively for wildlife habitat improvement projects and Conservation Easements by establishing the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust . I worked on getting this legislation passed, and despite a lot of resistance from a number of communities, we were able to get it through. We had to get rid of some incredible tools in order to get the legislation passed, but ultimately, enough concessions were made to move it forward.
States could look to this a template of sorts in their efforts to increase funding for wildlife habitat projects.
Another important tool that's not being funded is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Full funding for this brings more access, more wildlife projects, and more conservation easements as well as fishing access sites, city parks, etc.
Ultimately though, until Americans figure out that funding their agencies is a good idea, and a cost saving one to boot, we're going to be in a downward spiral of lack of funds/lack of ability/loss of habitat.
Ben, do the wind energy companies pay into the WY fund? IMO, they should.
Buzz- IMO habitat treatment would be a good way to spend a larger slice of the annual fire suppression budget. At least where I used to work I think large fires could be all but eliminated with enough of the right treatments...
Buzz- IMO habitat treatment would be a good way to spend a larger slice of the annual fire suppression budget. At least where I used to work I think large fires could be all but eliminated with enough of the right treatments...
onpoint
Well-known member
Interesting reading comments from resource people about the resource. It's kinda like a bunch of old hookers talking about the "details" of the job as the "clientele" is sitting in the parlor, waiting for the girls to shut up and get to what the boys consider the more important part of the job:hump:.
Let's just say Iv'e been hooking for awhile
........:W:
Let's just say Iv'e been hooking for awhile
........:W:
Last edited:
sweetnectar
New member
Now thats nasty but I'm sure enjoying the read.
I for one am always wondering why the public lands aren't in as good a shape as they could be. Perhaps a lot of it has to do with funding for things like reseeding after fires and what not. Maybe there are so many public lands and small departments trying to take care of too much with very little funds to do it. Maybe some of it is grazing issues, management laws that bog the whole process down, or hard to get to areas, and I'm sure the lists go on. In any case taking care of habitat is a good idea.
I for one am always wondering why the public lands aren't in as good a shape as they could be. Perhaps a lot of it has to do with funding for things like reseeding after fires and what not. Maybe there are so many public lands and small departments trying to take care of too much with very little funds to do it. Maybe some of it is grazing issues, management laws that bog the whole process down, or hard to get to areas, and I'm sure the lists go on. In any case taking care of habitat is a good idea.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I know this is harped on a bunch. What if we made the livestock Industry pay the going rate for range lands. From that increase, I wonder how much money could be raised for range improvements. Wouldn't that benefit the cattle as much as the wildlife? I have seen this sort of thing back fire. Did we miss the boat this legislative session by not prioritising more money to range improvements? You need good people to administer this stuff, because it's way over most average sportsman's heads.
The Root burnt bad in 2000, over 330,000 acres. . A lot of those lands were winter range. I know that the condition of the plant species isn't what it once was.
One of our oldest, and retired Bio's from the Root came and gave us a presentation on weeds, and plant species, counts, and winter range health. He was involved in the first studies done 30 years ago. (If I remember right) He went back and did they same counts on vegetation that he did back then, and things didn't look good. We need controlled burns, weed treatment, and a lot of TLC. To get things back to the way they were. How can we spend all of our resources trying to get our wildlife populations back, without the range-lands?
I lose sight of the big picture a lot of the time. People control is a small part of the equation, compared to things like, winter kill, and loss of plant communities, which most of all wildlife depend upon.
The Root burnt bad in 2000, over 330,000 acres. . A lot of those lands were winter range. I know that the condition of the plant species isn't what it once was.
One of our oldest, and retired Bio's from the Root came and gave us a presentation on weeds, and plant species, counts, and winter range health. He was involved in the first studies done 30 years ago. (If I remember right) He went back and did they same counts on vegetation that he did back then, and things didn't look good. We need controlled burns, weed treatment, and a lot of TLC. To get things back to the way they were. How can we spend all of our resources trying to get our wildlife populations back, without the range-lands?
I lose sight of the big picture a lot of the time. People control is a small part of the equation, compared to things like, winter kill, and loss of plant communities, which most of all wildlife depend upon.
onpoint
Well-known member
The unfortunate truth in todays fish and wildlife management scenario, is that people maanagement has taken the lead. Ben's earlier post in this thread summed it up. The primary users of the resource(s) have largeley turned a blind eye to how the resource is managed or mismanaged. There is only ONE WAY sound biology and science based management will become the paradigm once again....guess what it is
NVLongbow
Active member
The NV commissioners did recently vote to give NV our first bear hunt in history. This was a difficult vote but the science was there to support and they agreed even though it was not popular with the public majority. As you could have guessed, the hunt is being challenged in court.
Not sure what got into the majority of the commissioners heads regarding the mule deer vote; but they sure pulled a boner.
Not sure what got into the majority of the commissioners heads regarding the mule deer vote; but they sure pulled a boner.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
The unfortunate truth in todays fish and wildlife management scenario, is that people maanagement has taken the lead. Ben's earlier post in this thread summed it up. The primary users of the resource(s) have largeley turned a blind eye to how the resource is managed or mismanaged. There is only ONE WAY sound biology and science based management will become the paradigm once again....guess what it is
If the starving pygmies of New Guinea, over throw us?...
..If it becomes a state law? Let me know how close I am?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
This was on another web sight. This is some sort of adopted resolution to set Nevada's management course.
http://ndow.org/learn/com/mtg/2011/051211_Support/8_Deer_policy.pdf
http://ndow.org/learn/com/mtg/2011/051211_Support/8_Deer_policy.pdf
