Great! Herbert gathers together a couple hundred people and gets all worked up
over endangered game birds, and well he should. How about gathering together a
couple hundred legislators and business people and get worked up over the
thousands of people, especially children who suffer from lack of Medical care!
Utah is one of the last to opt in or out of the Fed. Medicare subsidy. Its win
win for the less fortunate but then again as usual politics comes first on the
hill and in the Govs. office!
@ Ralph West JordanI agree with you. Since obamacare went into
effect and my company now has to cover, by law, all these additional things they
dramatically reduced my coverage/benefits and my out of pocket increased by
thousands before I get ANY actual insurance coverage at all. So before
obamacare I had healthcare coverage that helped w a prescription for my son that
is over $700 a month. Now it is ALL out of pocket and we can't afford it
so my son will go without it. Obamacare is causing people who had some
healthcare benefits to lose them or become unaffordable.As far as
the sage grouse is concerned it seems pretty obvious that once again radical
environmental policy rules the day. Potentially over $41 billion at risk
because of.....a bird and what list the environmentalists want to put it on.
Strange nobody seems outraged at that.Everybody whines though that
we don't get hundreds of legislators and people together for whatever their
topic or issue might be. Here is a news flash for you though. It doesn't
cost $41 billion to provide all the healthcare for a significant portion of all
people in this State.
Most of this birds habitat is on private land.Land that belongs to
people not birds or environmentalists. NO ONE has the right to tell us
what we can do with our land and if it comes down to it.Stay off of
my land! If they really want to save this bird. They need to stop the
federal government from burning up the land, ie wildfires. They need to have
predator hunts to eliminate those animals that are robbing the eggs. Those two
actions will help the most!
The primary reason for sage grouse population decline is predation. The reasons
stated in the article are secondary. Any ground-nesting bird is going to
struggle with predators. Foxes and ravens are two of the main culprits. The
reason the federal agencies overlook predation is that they have no control over
Ralph West JordanOkay. "Utah is one of the last to opt in or out of
the Fed. Medicare subsidy." So which one is bad? Is it the "in" or
the "out?" And isn't it a good thing when it's finally a
"win win for the less fortunate?"
Maybe the Guv should be proactive rather than whinny and go full bore setting up
cottage industries to hatch as many new birds as can be done. Any efforts they
are currently working on can be multiplied many times.
The extreme environmentalists have destroyed California's water supply over
a small fish they had declared endangered. Hundreds of miles of orchards in
Central California are now dead trees and farms no longer exist for lack of
water, but the fish survives. So do the hopes of a salmon run that hasn't
happened in more than a hundred years. Towns are soon without drinking water in
this very real drought. It's time to put reason and people above species.
If wildfires have beeen part of the problem, that's a natural disaster, not
one to change mining and oil production and the jobs they supply over. I hope
Utah is able to convince the Feds and the crazies!! Balance, people!!
Everyone is beating the habitat drum... but know one will talk about predators.
Utah has lots of habitat that hasn't changed a bit for sage grouse in the
last 60 years. However, predators have continued to get the love, affection, and
protection of a warped public that doesn't understand the relationship they
play in suppressing prey populations. Until someone has the courage to control
sage grouse predators, particularly avian predators, no amount of work will
increase grouse. Since the Des. News does not allow links you will have to
Google "Impacts of Predation on Greater Sage-grouse in Strawberry"
yourself for the evidence.
So Governor Herbert, What is your plan? We know your upset, we know the
legislature wants to spend a couple of million on the problem...doing nothing is
not a answer. What do plan to do? Some leadership please.
Studies show that even the CBO says that when all is said and done, an identical
number of people (around 15%) will still not have health care. All Obamacare
will have done is expand the government, wreck the healthcare system, ruin the
quality of healthcare, and cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.
Sage grouse preservation is an issue that should not be compared or confused
with Medicaid. The government is able to decide on these issues separately. Most
people are reticent to decrease predatory populations including non-native
animals such as raccoons. You can have predators or you can have sage grouse,
but not both.
@Anti Government - High deductible health insurance plans were growing in
adoption rates before Obama was elected. Corporations are shifting health care
and retirement expenses to workers to increase profitability, its not s direct a
result of "Obamacare". The potential extinctions of an animal species is
a very serious issues and is not a "radical environmentalist" issue. The
Government needs to protect the public lands for all Americans. Conservation
efforts need to gain more steam so we don't continue to destroy our
I write a living wildlife column for the Capital Times in Wisconsin. One
solution - stop shooting and killing the grouse. In fact. do a 180 degree turn
and stop killing wildlife. Help them survive us. We have state agencies funded
on killing licenses instead of general public funds and so the killing is being
increased dramatically - and just like quail are gone across the entire country,
in Wisconsin, the state agency did not stop killing sharp-tailed grouse even
when the 635 licenses they sold only produced 27 birds to kill - birds that they
killed! Wildlife populations across the board, including birds, and
especially large mammals ( carnivores who are killed for trophy) have plummeted
35% in the past 35 years. We do not need billions of dollars of dirty fuels
doing further damage to the climate, the water systems, the wildlife, and our
earth. We do need intact biodiversity - but will NEVER have it as long as
killers control our state agencies and money controls our politicians.Politicians are destroying our world because they are bought under Citizens
United by dirty fuels, toxic factory farms, and hunters and trappers who are
destroying innocent wildlife thinking somehow their egos are tied to it. What a
Why don't you all Non-Utahns worry about your own neck of the woods? Have
you even spent $1 on Utah's wildlife preservation or given 5 minutes of
your time on am environmental improvement project?... Yeah, didn't think
so. When I hunt deer/elk I kick up about 20 grouse a day. Not so endangered in
my experience. This happens in different parts of the state btw.So Crazy
Crow, go bother Madison.
We should actually have some kind of season on hawks. I know, I know,they look
so beautiful flying around, but guess what they eat. I do know they eat my
neighbors chickens and I have seen them swoop down on quail. We have to manage
predators as well as all wildlife. Let the States take care of their wildlife
and keep the Feds out. Someone sitting behind a desk in DC has no clue.
Pres. Nixon signed the order banning the use of 1080 poison on all Federal lands
in 1973. It had been used to control predators but it had a secondary effect of
killing birds of prey that fed on the carcasses of dead predators. Since the
ban, the wildlife populations in the Western US have decreased dramatically. The
poison not only was used to kill cougars and coyotes but skunks , racoons etc.
Crows are notorious egg eaters, along with raccoons, foxes, coyotes etc. When
predator numbers increase, prey species and their young decrease. Perhaps we are
just seeing the balance in nature operate. Predators are controlled largely by 2
forces-- starvation and hunting. Starvation because of lack of prey base is part
of the cycle. Hunting can, if used correctly, help level of the dramatic swings
that can take place in wildlife and predator populations. Habitat certainly
plays a part in the sage grouse problem, but, habitat without protection from
predators will not solve the decline in population of the sage grouse. Its the
same with our deer herds.
Californian is right. California drained all the reservoirs a couple of years
ago as the environmentalists don't like reservoirs. Now they are paying
the piper. In Utah only 5% of the land is arable. Is someone telling me the
sage grouse live just on that 5%? I am ok with stopping hunting of them, and ok
with a little predator hunting season. I personally won't hunt even deer.
Its amazing, people are so biased , and its always something, or somebody
else's fault. It can never be our fault that we could be causing a problem,
or for that matter people in general. Because that might mean we would have to
change our ways, or maybe think of something else besides money or jobs.If you
are making a living , money off something, your opinion should be thrown out
because of a simple conflict of interest, or bias, you can not be objective.That
would eliminate opinions from energy development, farmers, and ranchers ,anyone
who stands to gain reward and benefit through money, concerning habitat ,and the
sage grouse.No one is going to admit that their actions hurt something when they
stand to make money from it.The Sage grouse is declining because a huge
percentage of their habitat required for existence sagebrush, has been plowed up
and destroyed, to plant monocultures of crops or grass.Some some of the
remaining habitat is also grazed too heavily by cattle, which also destroys
habitat for diversity of,grasses, Forbs, and insects, that feed the young sage
Birdman, farmers and ranchers have every right to have say in this particular
issue.It is THEIR land. Keep your land for the birds. Stay off of others
private property, your oppinion pertaining to their land is irrelevant..This is still a free country and people still have more rights then birds.
Read the recent book, the sixth extinction.Now if you care, its humans causing
this new mass impact, and future extinctions of animals and species. Our sheer
numbers of people, 7 billion, require incredible resources,to just sustain, and
have lasting impacts on nature, and are not sustainable.Many are being used up,
and degraded, far quicker then they are being replenished.The scapegoat is to
blame it on predators, or hunters, that way we do not have to change our
practices or impacts.There have always been predators, when Lewis and Clark
first explored the Great Plains there were many predators, but also there were
millions of buffalo, and grouse, and other wildlife.Admitting that it is us,
that is the real problem, is just to disconcerting for us to handle, it would
mean we are doing something wrong.And would mean changing how we look at the
world, it should not all be about us , people,because what we are doing to
wildlife and the planet, all species, we are also doing to ourselves, but we
just haven't realized it yet.
County mom: You have a right to your Opinion , And in this country to do what
you want on your land . Even if that means collectively killing indirectly
through loss of habitat many protected species of wildlife that are the publics
domain. It does not mean that your opinion is not biased by your money interest
. The hypocritical part is ranchers who graze cattle on millions of public acres
also want to tell us the public what to do on public land .
county mom:People have a right to their own opinion.But wouldn't it be
better for all, if that meant a informed opinion?A opinion based on facts,
knowledge, and one that is not biased. Supreme court justices cannot make ,and
vote on ,a issue where they have personal financial interests in that case.It is
simply called a conflict of interest.Why do we not treat other issues the same
way?You also have the right to do what you want on your own land.But within
reason, and according to laws.What if what you do on your land, hurts your
neighbor, or kills protected public wildlife or species?You mention the
government should not tell you what to do on your land.Then why do ranchers then
tell us, the public, what to do on public land, when it comes to public grazing
Bird man, In Montana, please go and tell your neighbors, the ranchers and
farmers, all the information you have shared here. Have them read the book you
suggest, then tell them they must not farm and ranch their own land. World wide, among the human populations, there are diseases, abortion and mass
genocide. Free birth control is offered to women in third world countries where
life saving medication is not available. There is starvation and death among the
children of this planet, millions die every year before they reach adulthood,
millions more die before they are even born. In Africa in the 1980's the
average woman had 9 children, that number had dropped to 5 children by 2000.
Most of China is only allowed 1 child and parents make sure that child is male.
This has created a low number of females, creating a very low birth rate. In
Europe 1 in every 6 adults do not even marry or have children. A trend that has
grown from 1 in 10 in the 1980's, this has been spilling over into the US
where many young adults choose not to have children. Most families in Europe
have only 1 child, most in the US have 2.5.