The New BLM Sage Grouse Conservation Plan

Dear Editor,

Flushed with their success in using the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to shut down the western U.S. timber industry (has anyone heard how the spotted owl is doing?), the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) bragged they would use the same ploy to shut down grazing on the federally managed western range lands. They were not successful but for the last 30 or so years the Federal and State governments have spent over a BILLION taxpayer dollars to 'save' the sage grouse. Now the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing stronger sage grouse conservation plans.

Unfortunately, the bureaucrats and researchers have never learned that to 'conserve' a species you have to know why they are declining. When an animal population declines it means more animals are being removed (i.e. dying or leaving) than are being added to the population through reproduction or immigration. Current scientific research has not shown sage grouse are dying of starvation or by flying into fences. What their data does show is that most birds are being removed by predation and secondarily by disease (West Nile virus).

The history of sage grouse populations should be the starting point. Lewis and Clark came through the northwestern U.S. in 1805 and only encountered sage grouse (they called them 'Heath Hens') three times The first was where the Marias River joins the Missouri River, the second was at the source of the Missouri River and the third encounter was at the confluence of the Snake and the Columbia Rivers. Since early trappers and travelers rarely mentioned these birds as they passed through northeastern Montana, I concluded there were few sage grouse here in the 1800s. Apparently, the population exploded in the early 1900s as homesteaders poured into this area. Old timers that I interviewed talked about seeing huge flocks of sage grouse and that it was common for everyone to dine on young birds in August. The population appeared to be robust into the 70s.

I then came across a paper by J. Wayne Burkhardt called Sage Grouse Myths in the summer 2008 Range Magazine. He was a University of Nevada range professor and looked at the history of sage grouse in the Intermountain West. He found, "Historic journals and other records indicate relative scarcity of sage grouse in the Intermountain West during the early 1800s' period, with apparently vast flocks of sage grouse from the 1870s to the 1960s. From the 1960s to the 1980s there was a major decline to the present population level." He maintained, "Sage grouse population trends closely parallel the trend in livestock grazing pressure." He also mentioned the increase in the sage grouse population coincided with the advent of government predator control programs and population numbers mirrored the reduction of predator control.

Dr. Burkhardt's claim that heavy livestock grazing benefited the sage grouse certainly applies to eastern Montana, as the open rangelands invited heavy speculative livestock grazing. In addition to the government predator programs he listed, we also had homesteaders shooting all the 'chicken hawks' and their kids trapping predator fur bearers. Sage grouse also need surface water to drink and this was seasonally very limited, particularly in parts of eastern Montana, until the homesteaders built reservoirs and pits.

This very brief look at sage grouse population history suggests that this species was not very numerous prior to the European invasion of the western landscape. The probable main reason for the enormous sage grouse population increase range-wide in the early 1900s was the very effective predator removal. Since this action cannot be repeated at this time, we have to accept that sage grouse populations are adjusting to a habitat that has returned predators and has introduced vegetation management. In other words, the sage grouse in the western U.S. have returned to their status that existed before the European invasion but into a totally changed environment.

The BLM has proposed another plan to conserve sage grouse by spending over $150 million dollars to 'maintain, protect and restore healthy sagebrush habitat'. The problem is they do not know what healthy sagebrush habitat is or how to restore it. If they did, it would have been done already. You often hear how plowing up the sagebrush for crops was a major reason the sage grouse numbers declined. We have had millions of acres converted back to grassland through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). How many acres do you suppose were planted back to sagebrush? An embarrassing question! Apparently, sagebrush is very hard to propagate and regenerate but it sounds like the BLM is planning to spend millions trying.

A news release claimed the BLM manages the largest single share of sage grouse habitat in the United States. By law, the BLM has to sign off on all developments, changes, alterations, etc. that the permittee of a federal grazing allotment is proposing. Therefore, there is no threat to the sagebrush community by livestock operations. The main way that sagebrush will be destroyed on BLM managed lands is by prairie fires. Some of this money could be spent on fire suppression and water development for better distribution of livestock.

Apparently, the BLM is planning to spend millions of dollars to solve a problem that does not exist. I do not think they have decided whether they want to duplicate the situation prior to the European invasion or whether they want the fabulous numbers of sage grouse during the homestead era! In reality, the Washington elites are using this plan of sage grouse conservation to limit oil and gas development and mining operations on the BLM managed lands. Do the restrictions also apply to solar and wind developments?

Sincerely,

Ron Stoneberg

Hinsdale, Mont.