Getting Conservation To The Ground – Figuring Out What’s Needed
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Returning to the subject of the Bi-State Local Planning Area and the meeting held on December 16 at the Smith Valley Library , the reports offered that evening indicated that in the most recent surveys of Sage Grouse counts, Nevada’s lek trends have been static to slightly declining. Meanwhile, the populations on the California side were at all-time highs.
When asked to link the results of conservation measures, which have been taken since the adoption of the first edition of the Sage Grouse Conservation Plan , (published in June of 2004) – there wasn’t an explanation available on why Sage Grouse in Nevada haven’t been doing better and why California birds have been increasing. Fortunately, none of the six population management units (PMUs) in the Bi-State area have experienced the devastation of wildfire and other major issues that some of the other areas of Nevada have encountered since the beginning of conservation efforts were launched.
Probably the best possible reason behind increasing populations (wherever that has occurred) has been not having bad things happen. For other areas (beyond catastrophic events like wildfire) weather conditions one year to the next could mean short-term declines or turn arounds for improvements in the future.
There are no quick fixes to re-establishment of Sage Brush communities and no magic bullets to accomplish results for growing larger Sage Grouse populations.
Private Land Owners Sought To Conserve:
A significant portion (at least by way of emphasis) at the December 16th meeting was oriented to private land owners playing an increased role in conservation activities. Without getting into details (because there isn’t any more evidence then there was in 2004 of specific needs) of what contributions private lands could effectively provide, the primary reason for the attention likely had more to do with funding resources being available from the Natural Resource Conservation Service than anything else.
Chasing money for the sake of getting dollars might have more to do with conservation intentions than accomplishments of improved conditions. Supposedly, evaluating conservation based on dollars expended actually carries a weight with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision makers (yea, that science thing really is what the Endangered Species Act is all about…).
Assignments for the involved citizens and other participants in the Bi-State conservation area are to get the local planning groups re-engaged, reviewing the reports prepared for the 2004 planning project and assessing where things currently stand. Threats and opportunities need to be updated for the specific areas and bird populations of the designated population management units…which brings me to the principles of conservation enhancement that I would like to see resolved for on-going plans.
Somehow – some way the on-the-ground conservation must move from theory and throwing anything/everything at the wall (to see what might stick) and evolve to understanding what actually is happening at a specific place. Is the problem or success related to nesting conditions (are eggs surviving to hatch)? Is the problem or success conditioned on baby chicks surviving to become young birds? Are there gains or losses coming from getting through the winter in appropriate condition to make breeding and egg laying successful activities? Not all problems are logically the same everywhere and not all solutions for addressing Sage Grouse everywhere automatically the same.
Whether in the Bi-State Area, in any of the other six local, Nevada Planning Groups – or with Sage Grouse conservation projects across the 11-state range…our most effective accomplishments are going to need to be based on site specific solutions, doing what needs to be done wherever that site specific place might be. The science might tell us what is ideal (at least the real science and not the stuff with an agenda), but applying that to on-the-ground circumstances is going to need more.
Returning to the subject of the Bi-State Local Planning Area and the meeting held on December 16 at the Smith Valley Library , the reports offered that evening indicated that in the most recent surveys of Sage Grouse counts, Nevada’s lek trends have been static to slightly declining. Meanwhile, the populations on the California side were at all-time highs.
When asked to link the results of conservation measures, which have been taken since the adoption of the first edition of the Sage Grouse Conservation Plan , (published in June of 2004) – there wasn’t an explanation available on why Sage Grouse in Nevada haven’t been doing better and why California birds have been increasing. Fortunately, none of the six population management units (PMUs) in the Bi-State area have experienced the devastation of wildfire and other major issues that some of the other areas of Nevada have encountered since the beginning of conservation efforts were launched.
Probably the best possible reason behind increasing populations (wherever that has occurred) has been not having bad things happen. For other areas (beyond catastrophic events like wildfire) weather conditions one year to the next could mean short-term declines or turn arounds for improvements in the future.
There are no quick fixes to re-establishment of Sage Brush communities and no magic bullets to accomplish results for growing larger Sage Grouse populations.
Private Land Owners Sought To Conserve:
A significant portion (at least by way of emphasis) at the December 16th meeting was oriented to private land owners playing an increased role in conservation activities. Without getting into details (because there isn’t any more evidence then there was in 2004 of specific needs) of what contributions private lands could effectively provide, the primary reason for the attention likely had more to do with funding resources being available from the Natural Resource Conservation Service than anything else.
Chasing money for the sake of getting dollars might have more to do with conservation intentions than accomplishments of improved conditions. Supposedly, evaluating conservation based on dollars expended actually carries a weight with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision makers (yea, that science thing really is what the Endangered Species Act is all about…).
Assignments for the involved citizens and other participants in the Bi-State conservation area are to get the local planning groups re-engaged, reviewing the reports prepared for the 2004 planning project and assessing where things currently stand. Threats and opportunities need to be updated for the specific areas and bird populations of the designated population management units…which brings me to the principles of conservation enhancement that I would like to see resolved for on-going plans.
Somehow – some way the on-the-ground conservation must move from theory and throwing anything/everything at the wall (to see what might stick) and evolve to understanding what actually is happening at a specific place. Is the problem or success related to nesting conditions (are eggs surviving to hatch)? Is the problem or success conditioned on baby chicks surviving to become young birds? Are there gains or losses coming from getting through the winter in appropriate condition to make breeding and egg laying successful activities? Not all problems are logically the same everywhere and not all solutions for addressing Sage Grouse everywhere automatically the same.
Whether in the Bi-State Area, in any of the other six local, Nevada Planning Groups – or with Sage Grouse conservation projects across the 11-state range…our most effective accomplishments are going to need to be based on site specific solutions, doing what needs to be done wherever that site specific place might be. The science might tell us what is ideal (at least the real science and not the stuff with an agenda), but applying that to on-the-ground circumstances is going to need more.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 12/28/2010 8:46 AM 
Categories: Sage Grouse
Tags: Sage Grouse Endangered Species Nevada Conservation Sage Brush
Categories: Sage Grouse
Tags: Sage Grouse Endangered Species Nevada Conservation Sage Brush
Comments