Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

One of my favorite birds and I've been lucky enough to see a few of them hiking in the scab rock over the years although there now very few remaining in Washington. They rely upon pristine and threatened sagebrush-steppe habitat to survive, and represent a key part of preserving western ecosystems and our national heritage.

Sage grouse rules would affect 10 states

Restrictions on oil drilling, power line location to tighten

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Interior Secretary Sally Jewell revealed plans Thursday to preserve habitat in 10 Western states for an imperiled ground-dwelling bird, the federal government’s biggest land-planning effort to date for conservation of a single species.

The proposal would affect energy development. The regulations would require oil and gas wells to be clustered in groups of a half-dozen or more to avoid scattering them across habitat of the greater sage grouse. Drilling near breeding areas would be prohibited during mating season, and power lines would be moved away from prime habitat to avoid serving as perches for raptors that eat sage grouse.

Some will say the plans don’t go far enough to protect the bird, Jewell said.

“But I would say these plans are grounded in sound science – the best available science,” she said at a news conference on a ranch near Cheyenne.

http://www.spokesman.com/outdoors/stori ... 10-states/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“But I would say these plans are grounded in sound science – the best available science,”

I used to hear that "best available science" terminology a lot when I was a coastal resources biologist. It's a legal terminology thing. But my experience was that "best available science' often means crappy science.

In my world then it was usually fisheries stuff and that usually meant fisheries models. I can remember looking at all of the assumptions of fisheries models and thinking that not a single one of them was met. All they were doing, to me, was giving an aura of quantitative objectivity and science to a crap shoot. I thought about how the public actually thought they really did have some idea as to fisheries stock populations, etc., and they didn't. It was a joke.

Then there was the sea turtle thing to justify requiring Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs). It was based on this big survey to estimate the number of sea turtles being killed in shrimp nets. Once again, total crap. Totally unreliable sampling. Once again creating the impression that they had some kind of objective, unbiased quantitative estimate relevant to the decision process when they didn't.

The mentality is, to me, reflected by the following quote from http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/200 ... il-science" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

Professor Plater criticizes the Data Quality Act as providing “weaponry for regulated industries to challenge regulations by forcing agencies to put their administrative records to strict tests of scientific accuracy, missing the point that in many fields, like environmental regulation, government is supposed to use the precautionary principle, regulating in situations where the common law, for instance, would not yet be able to restrict dangerous actions because it was not yet able to prove actual causation.” - See more at: http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/200 ... BxCJs.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So that's the idea. We (not me, that's rhetorical) want to "force" agencies to actually have a sound scientific basis for doing things instead of using that "best available science" thing to justify using crappy science when it's just the LEAST crappy science they have instead of being sound science, or statistical survey, or statistical inference, or whatever. Never mind that you can do damage by deciding to regulate when regulation is not necessary. Oh, and HEAVEN FORBID that regulated industry should be able to defend itself by pointing out that the regulatory agency is not using sound science to support its decision. Can't have THAT!

So do you have any evidence to indicate that "sound science" isn't being used in this case, or did you just feel like serenading us with another one of your "look how smart I am" diatribes?

JohnStOnge wrote:

“But I would say these plans are grounded in sound science – the best available science,”

I used to hear that "best available science" terminology a lot when I was a coastal resources biologist. It's a legal terminology thing. But my experience was that "best available science' often means crappy science.

In my world then it was usually fisheries stuff and that usually meant fisheries models. I can remember looking at all of the assumptions of fisheries models and thinking that not a single one of them was met. All they were doing, to me, was giving an aura of quantitative objectivity and science to a crap shoot. I thought about how the public actually thought they really did have some idea as to fisheries stock populations, etc., and they didn't. It was a joke.

Then there was the sea turtle thing to justify requiring Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs). It was based on this big survey to estimate the number of sea turtles being killed in shrimp nets. Once again, total crap. Totally unreliable sampling. Once again creating the impression that they had some kind of objective, unbiased quantitative estimate relevant to the decision process when they didn't.

The mentality is, to me, reflected by the following quote from http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/200 ... il-science" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

Professor Plater criticizes the Data Quality Act as providing “weaponry for regulated industries to challenge regulations by forcing agencies to put their administrative records to strict tests of scientific accuracy, missing the point that in many fields, like environmental regulation, government is supposed to use the precautionary principle, regulating in situations where the common law, for instance, would not yet be able to restrict dangerous actions because it was not yet able to prove actual causation.” - See more at: http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/200 ... BxCJs.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So that's the idea. We (not me, that's rhetorical) want to "force" agencies to actually have a sound scientific basis for doing things instead of using that "best available science" thing to justify using crappy science when it's just the LEAST crappy science they have instead of being sound science, or statistical survey, or statistical inference, or whatever. Never mind that you can do damage by deciding to regulate when regulation is not necessary. Oh, and HEAVEN FORBID that regulated industry should be able to defend itself by pointing out that the regulatory agency is not using sound science to support its decision. Can't have THAT!

Sage grouse don't like habitat disruption and loss.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I used to hear that "best available science" terminology a lot when I was a coastal resources biologist. It's a legal terminology thing. But my experience was that "best available science' often means crappy science.

In my world then it was usually fisheries stuff and that usually meant fisheries models. I can remember looking at all of the assumptions of fisheries models and thinking that not a single one of them was met. All they were doing, to me, was giving an aura of quantitative objectivity and science to a crap shoot. I thought about how the public actually thought they really did have some idea as to fisheries stock populations, etc., and they didn't. It was a joke.

Then there was the sea turtle thing to justify requiring Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs). It was based on this big survey to estimate the number of sea turtles being killed in shrimp nets. Once again, total crap. Totally unreliable sampling. Once again creating the impression that they had some kind of objective, unbiased quantitative estimate relevant to the decision process when they didn't.

The mentality is, to me, reflected by the following quote from http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/200 ... il-science" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:



So that's the idea. We (not me, that's rhetorical) want to "force" agencies to actually have a sound scientific basis for doing things instead of using that "best available science" thing to justify using crappy science when it's just the LEAST crappy science they have instead of being sound science, or statistical survey, or statistical inference, or whatever. Never mind that you can do damage by deciding to regulate when regulation is not necessary. Oh, and HEAVEN FORBID that regulated industry should be able to defend itself by pointing out that the regulatory agency is not using sound science to support its decision. Can't have THAT!

Sage grouse don't like habitat disruption and loss.

did they tell you that?

kalm wrote:Sage grouse don't like habitat disruption and loss.

Then it's time for the sage grouse to evolve.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Sage grouse don't like habitat disruption and loss.

did they tell you that?

Yes.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
did they tell you that?

Yes.

Source? Link?

Introduce wolves, they fix everything

Sage Grouse consistently VOTE Jill Stein...

I have it on good authority

Chizzang wrote:Sage Grouse consistently VOTE Jill Stein...

I have it on good authority

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes.

Source? Link?

A few years back I was traveling down a semi-remote winding, dirt road in the Columbia Basin on my way to a favorite fishing spot and came across a sage grouse hen. She was on the side of the road but instead of running or flying as we slowed down and approached, she held her ground.

The grouse then walked slowly to the middle of the road in front of my truck, stopped and looked back toward the grasses she had come from. Slowly, out popped a half dozen chicks. The mother stood her ground in front of my Tundra until the last chick had crossed and disappeared back into the roadside brush before she scurried across to join them.

I'd provide a link to her first person feelings on the matter, but it's difficult to type with these:

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Source? Link?

A few years back I was traveling down a semi-remote winding, dirt road in the Columbia Basin on my way to a favorite fishing spot and came across a sage grouse hen. She was on the side of the road but instead of running or flying as we slowed down and approached, she held her ground.

The grouse then walked slowly to the middle of the road in front of my truck, stopped and looked back toward the grasses she had come from. Slowly, out popped a half dozen chicks. The mother stood her ground in front of my Tundra until the last chick had crossed and disappeared back into the roadside brush before she scurried across to join them.

I'd provide a link to her first person feelings on the matter, but it's difficult to type with these:

Well F*ck..!!!
Everybody knows a gawd damned Tundra couldn't even scare a female Sage Grouse
High School Cheerleaders drive Tundra's out West man



Grow a pair and get an F-150 (or 250)

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
A few years back I was traveling down a semi-remote winding, dirt road in the Columbia Basin on my way to a favorite fishing spot and came across a sage grouse hen. She was on the side of the road but instead of running or flying as we slowed down and approached, she held her ground.

The grouse then walked slowly to the middle of the road in front of my truck, stopped and looked back toward the grasses she had come from. Slowly, out popped a half dozen chicks. The mother stood her ground in front of my Tundra until the last chick had crossed and disappeared back into the roadside brush before she scurried across to join them.

I'd provide a link to her first person feelings on the matter, but it's difficult to type with these:

Well F*ck..!!!
Everybody knows a gawd damned Tundra couldn't even scare a female Sage Grouse
High School Cheerleaders drive Tundra's out West man



Grow a pair and get an F-150 (or 250)

My last truck was an F150. It was more quiet and comfortable than the Tundra but beaten soundly in every other category.

F150 is the fag hag of trucks.

Thinking about selling my Tundra now.........

BTW if that would have happened to me there would have been blood and feathers all over the road. I absolutely will not stop for ANY animal in the road. #circleoflife

Grizalltheway wrote:So do you have any evidence to indicate that "sound science" isn't being used in this case, or did you just feel like serenading us with another one of your "look how smart I am" diatribes?

No I don't have any direct evidence but I believe that when you see that "best available science" thing that's code for "we don't really have sound science to support our decision." That's my opinion based on hearing that language used repeatedly when I was a coastal fisheries biologist.

It's "cop out" language.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Thinking about selling my Tundra now.........

BTW if that would have happened to me there would have been blood and feathers all over the road. I absolutely will not stop for ANY animal in the road. #circleoflife

Are you fucking kidding me?

You wouldn't have shot it?

Grouse is delicious you idiot.

BTW it wouldn't matter if this thing went extinct. That's the biggest thing wrong with this Endangered Species Act crap. We have to jump through all kinds of hoops to TRY to prevent species from becoming extinct when it really doesn't even matter if they go extinct.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW it wouldn't matter if this thing went extinct. That's the biggest thing wrong with this Endangered Species Act crap. We have to jump through all kinds of hoops to TRY to prevent species from becoming extinct when it really doesn't even matter if they go extinct.

How do you know this? Is that what the best available science tells us?

How do you know this? Is that what the best available science tells us?

I just know it. I don't even think it's a "scientific" question. It's obvious. If the sage grouse went extinct it would make absolutely no difference in our lives. Most people have never seen one. Most people WILL never see one. It's like Do Do Birds and Passenger Pigeons. If they disappear life will go on.

In any case the burden of proof ought to be on those who want to cause all kinds of shit in order to prevent a species from going extinct. They ought to have to show how life just CAN'T go on if THAT species goes extinct even though life has gone on over billions of years while more than 99% of species that have ever exited have already gone extinct.

The Endangered Species Act is one of the stupidest things this country has ever done. And it's causing all kinds of stupid decisions.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Source? Link?

A few years back I was traveling down a semi-remote winding, dirt road in the Columbia Basin on my way to a favorite fishing spot and came across a sage grouse hen. She was on the side of the road but instead of running or flying as we slowed down and approached, she held her ground.

The grouse then walked slowly to the middle of the road in front of my truck, stopped and looked back toward the grasses she had come from. Slowly, out popped a half dozen chicks. The mother stood her ground in front of my Tundra until the last chick had crossed and disappeared back into the roadside brush before she scurried across to join them.

I'd provide a link to her first person feelings on the matter, but it's difficult to type with these:

Fucking coward! The duck showed you up in front of you sons.

andy7171 wrote:

kalm wrote:
A few years back I was traveling down a semi-remote winding, dirt road in the Columbia Basin on my way to a favorite fishing spot and came across a sage grouse hen. She was on the side of the road but instead of running or flying as we slowed down and approached, she held her ground.

The grouse then walked slowly to the middle of the road in front of my truck, stopped and looked back toward the grasses she had come from. Slowly, out popped a half dozen chicks. The mother stood her ground in front of my Tundra until the last chick had crossed and disappeared back into the roadside brush before she scurried across to join them.

I'd provide a link to her first person feelings on the matter, but it's difficult to type with these:

Fucking coward! The duck showed you up in front of you sons.

Don't talk to me like that! I'm not 93!

JohnStOnge wrote:

How do you know this? Is that what the best available science tells us?

I just know it. I don't even think it's a "scientific" question. It's obvious. If the sage grouse went extinct it would make absolutely no difference in our lives. Most people have never seen one. Most people WILL never see one. It's like Do Do Birds and Passenger Pigeons. If they disappear life will go on.

In any case the burden of proof ought to be on those who want to cause all kinds of shit in order to prevent a species from going extinct. They ought to have to show how life just CAN'T go on if THAT species goes extinct even though life has gone on over billions of years while more than 99% of species that have ever exited have already gone extinct.

The Endangered Species Act is one of the stupidest things this country has ever done. And it's causing all kinds of stupid decisions.

I agree John. It's more of a moral question. We can cause minor inconveniences to energy extractors and save one of God's creatures from extinction or we can place the almighty dollar ahead of that.

I still marvel at all of God's creations. I feel sorry for you.

kalm wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Thinking about selling my Tundra now.........

BTW if that would have happened to me there would have been blood and feathers all over the road. I absolutely will not stop for ANY animal in the road. #circleoflife

Are you fucking kidding me?

You wouldn't have shot it?

Grouse is delicious you idiot.

First of all it wasnt hunting season when this happened so you and your lowboy are trying to encourage poaching?

Real responsible..........................Yes I know grouse is good (not better than pheasant) I have shot multiple dozens of them with my bow.

It's the natural course of things. Species arise and species go extinct. Many times species go extinct because other species arise and their activity is hostile to other species.

Our species arose. Other species have gone extinct as a result and more will become extinct. Meanwhile, some species have been able to adapt to our presence and our presence has even enhanced things for other species.

We shouldn't have a law that does what the Endangered Species Act does. We shouldn't be saying that we're going to protect habitat just because if we don't some species is going to go extinct. We shouldn't have a law that says we're going to go to just about any extreme to prevent any species from going extinct just for the sake of preventing species from going extinct. Species go extinct. What the hell are we doing having a law that does all that crap to prevent species from going extinct when we know species are going to go extinct? What we're doing is insane.