Home » Commentary » Sage grouse Controversy Continues Part II

Sage grouse Controversy Continues Part II

Continued use of chemical fertilization and poor research info by special interest groups like ONDA leave the edicts of “management” open to blackmail of companies like the Ruby Pipeline that purportedly were damaging the south-western corner of Sheldon refuge for eons in the future from the habitat of the Pygmy Rabbit. That area did not greatly, and still does not greatly support the Big Sage habitat that Pygmy rabbits prefer, therefore the installation of the Ruby Pipeline only disturbed this area for the length of time to grow back the Big Sage, greases and forbes that could have been augmented by a re-planting program after the pipeline installation.

But instead, money supposedly paid by Ruby Pipeline to benefit the rehab of habitat went to ONDA programs and the USFWS and where? Big federal organizations and Special Interest groups do NOT need to benefit from the destroying of personal property and businesses. What we do need are common sense and co-operative efforts to benefit animals and people involved for the betterment of these areas.

Joe Villagrana’s letter to the editor of the Examiner very succinctly summed up the common sense efforts he and most other ranchers are using, benefitting the Sage-grouse, rabbits and preserving these animals ecosystems, reducing the threat of opportunities of predators and managing the land, optimizing forage and habitat and correctly rebuilding the land with animal fertilization.

Restrict and/ or eliminating the cattle will cause soil rehab to fail and place us in danger of returning to “dust bowl” situations.

My information has been gained from 8-10 years of volunteer work on the ground and typing up reports on Sheldon-Hart Mtn. Refuges and several other refuges, working with Gregg and Meisel, and several other USFWS personnel, listening and absorbing their ground and field experience, something ONDA never attempted during my years on the mountain and who was in direct opposition to the research being done if it was adverse to their preference for removal of cattle.

Do we have to go through a “Vote it in and then we’ll find out what it entails Pelosi-Reid attitude” on this?

 Ann Woods,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.