TS30 does bring up an excellent point though. ESA listing of the sage grouse would be devastating to the oil and gas industries that are drilling in sage steppe environments. However, these are also, or were, great mule deer habitats. The revenue loss of $20 billion I don't doubt, but I do doubt the 200,000 jobs. There certainly are NOT 200,000 O&G jobs in Utah right now. In fact, since the Saudis dropped the price of crude, several of my friends that have been employed out in the Basin in the O&G industry have been laid off. It is part of a boom/bust cycle of that industry. The big boom in North Dakota has leveled off and jobs are leaving as quick as they came to that part of the country.
But the sage grouse are just the poster child for the sage ecosystems. Populations have and will continue to fluctuate along with drought cycles and fire practices in sage communities. It always has been, and always will be. But seeing entire swaths of land (think the Jona and Anticline Fields outside of Pinedale, WY or out in the Uinta Basin) are eaten up in basically one continuous drill pad - and that is why wildland advocates are looking for something to curtail that kind of habitat transformation. The assertion of habitat fragmentation due to the web of roads is pretty hard to refute, even for the biggest critics.
To me though, I don't see the fragmentation as the biggest issue related to the O&G development. To me, the biggest issue is not the direct impact of fragmentation, but the induced impact of altered fire management in developed O&G areas. Fragmentation can be mitigated to an extent through passage zones, changes in pad density, road recovery practices, and buffers around leks. However, wildfire management is a much bigger issue. Healthy sage steppe is fire dependent, and needs a fire interval of about 15-20 years to really work. So fire needs to be a regular part of the sage environments. But with billions of dollars of O&G assets out there, and assets that will turn into a blow torch, do you really think the FS and BLM are going to "let it burn"? Not a chance. And without regular fire, you don't get multiple age class plants, resulting in a mono-age situation. This is DEVASTATING to mule deer, pronghorn, sage grouse, any any other critter than depends on the sage environment to thrive.
And this leads to the land grab issue. BLM and the FS can let a few thousand acres burn here and there every year. It is good for the entire system when that happens. But it only works when whole valleys, mountains, or watersheds can be viewed in context. If that is subdivided into 5, 20, 100, even 1,000 acre parcels for the selling, each of those buyers cannot afford to let those acres burn. The land can no longer be managed in a larger context, but each owner of the 1,000 acre parcel must look out for their own. And any kind of remaining eco-context is completely lost.
And it is that kind of habitat loss/fragmentation/transformation that IS happening now, that causes those that want to stop it, to push for invoking the ESA in some attempt to stop it. It isn't about the sage grouse right now. It is about seeing what we are doing on a larger scale and saying "holy crap. What are we doing to ourselves?"
I think as generally politically conservative outdoorsmen types, we are in an interesting spot. The party that backs less government, our right to carry guns, and private property rights is also the party that chants "drill baby drill". While the party that tends towards greater environmental protections leans towards increased government control of everything from our guns to our 4wd trucks. As an outdoorsman, I feel like a political refugee.
Which leads me to ask the question - anyone want to re-ignite TR's Bull Moose Party?
